The Family Court has one outcome and one program on which it reports in 2011-12. See Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1 The Family Court’s outcome and program
| Outcome 1 | As Australia's specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters |
|---|---|
| Program 1.1 | Provision of Family Court |
Whilst the Court's reporting is for the single program, this report presents information in two streams:
This approach is considered by the Court to provide clearer reporting of the Court's performance against its deliverables and key performance indicators, as set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12.
The Court has eight key performance indicators (KPIs) against which it is reporting in 2011-12. This is the fourth year in which they have been used. In 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Court was able to achieve five of the eight and in 2010-11 it achieved four out of the eight. This year it has achieved five of the eight. The following sections provide some commentary about performance against the KPIs to highlight challenges and strategies in place to help meet the targets.
The Court aims to finalise as many, or more, cases in a year than start in a year - in other words, to have a clearance rate of at least 100 per cent. Achieving this target means the Court is able to 'clear out' its existing cases while new cases start, so that the backlog of cases does not increase. The Court has met or more than met this target for the past four years.
The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending (active) applications less than 12 months old. The Court has increased this from last year's 70 per cent but has again fallen just short of this target, by achieving 73 per cent. This is indicative that strategies from previous years are having some affect on improving performance. These strategies included:
Reserved judgment delivery times are an important focus for the Court, as these are cases that are, for all intents and purposes, completed but parties are waiting for the reasons of the judge's final decision. The Court seeks to have 75 per cent of reserved judgments delivered within three months. Although during the year the Court achieved an overall positive result with 77 per cent of all reserved judgments being delivered within three months of the completion of hearing, some unforeseen delays at the end of year meant the reportable KPI, which is a 'snapshot' figure at 30 June 2012, does not reflect this.
What it shows is that of the 'backlog' of judgments awaiting delivery at 30 June 2012, a significantly higher percentage - 50 per cent - were older than three months. So the Court missed this KPI by a significant margin. This is disappointing as, while the Court met its target throughout most of the year, it failed at the critical point in time for this KPI. It is expected that this was merely an aberration in the management of some complex judgments at the end of the financial year. Despite missing the KPI, the Court is confident that, through the Chief Justice, strategies implemented over the past few years are proving to be successful. These strategies include:
For the past four years the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) has not been able to meet its target to answer 80 per cent of calls within 90 seconds. The NEC provides a critical client service and is the main point for providing information about many aspects of the Court's services (and those of the Federal Magistrates Court). Its role has expanded and, for that and other reasons, it has been unable to meet the high standard it is trying to achieve. However, in 2011-12, it made a significant improvement in call waiting times, reducing these by more than half to three minutes and 15 seconds. More information about factors that have affected performance in 2011-12 is included later in this part.
The performance indicators for counter enquiries, the processing of lodged applications, email response times and complaints as a percentage of all applications were met.
More detailed information about performance against the eight KPIs is contained in the following reporting.
Judicial services include:
In order to better understand the Court's performance, it is necessary to understand that the Court's caseload is predominantly applications for Final Orders, Applications in a Case, and Consent Orders. These three types of cases contribute most to the Court's overall performance.
Final orders applications are mostly cases where clients commence litigated proceedings to obtain final parenting and/or financial orders.
Applications in a case are additional proceedings in which a client seeks interim orders until such time as the application for final orders is decided or interlocutory orders relating to the conduct of a case prior to a final hearing.
Consent orders applications are where the clients have agreed or settled on terms relating to the parenting and/or financial issues and they are seeking the Court ratify these by way of making them binding court orders.
In 2011-12, the Court achieved three judicial key performance indicators and deliverables under the Portfolio Budget Statements and was unable to achieve four. However, the targets missed were only small margins, indicating that the Court is 'on track' to achieving its goals.
Table 3.1 summarises the Court's results in delivering judicial services against the key performance indicators and deliverables published in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements.
Table 3.1 Summary of performance - judicial services
| Key performance indicators and deliverables | Target/deliverable | 2010-11 target/result | 2011-12 result | 2011-12 target achieved |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deliverables | ||||
| Number of finalisations per annum | Final order finalisations: 3200 | 3500/3795 | 3334 | Yes |
| Interim order finalisations: 3800 | 4100/3649 | 3544 | No | |
| Consent order finalisations: 10 900 | 10,400/10,713 | 10,454 | No | |
| Other order finalisations*: 300 | 400/359 | 350 | Yes | |
| KPIs** | ||||
| Clearance rate | 100% | 100%/104% | 100% | Yes |
| Backlog indicators | More than 75% of matters pending conclusion are less than 12 months old | 75%/70% | 73% | No |
| More than 75% of reserved judgments are waiting less than three months after the conclusion of trial | 75%/73% | 50% | No | |
Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for ease of interpreting the differences between judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.3 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.
The Court continues to deal with the most complex and difficult family law cases dealing with either children or financial issues or a combination of both. In recent years there has been a shift to a higher proportion of matters having financial issues.
Figures 3.2 and 3.3 show the new caseload during 2011-12.
Figure 3.2 Applications filed, 2011-12*
| Application | Filed | % |
|---|---|---|
| Final orders applications | 3271 | 18% |
| Application in a case (Interim) | 3609 | 20% |
| Consent orders applications | 10,518 | 59% |
| Other applications | 335 | 2% |
| Total | 17,733 | 100% |
| Issues sought on Applications for Final Orders | ||
| Parenting only | 1151 | 35% |
| Financial only | 1659 | 51% |
| Parenting and financial | 427 | 13% |
| Other | 34 | 1% |
The Court's case mix is predominantly complex cases that often involve multiple issues and higher levels of conflict between the parties. The parties in these cases are less likely to settle their dispute and therefore have a higher chance of needing a judicial decision at trial. In all the cases finalised during 2011-12, 12.9 per cent of them required a judge to make the final judgment.
Figure 3.4 shows the changing settlement and attrition trend of the Court's completed caseload and the case management phase where they finalised.
Parties who are unable to settle their dispute require a judge to make a decision after a trial, although frequently parties reach settlement during the trial process.
Figure 3.5 provides the number of cases that are finalised at first instance trial. The Court had fewer trials in 2011-12, reflecting not only less cases coming before the Court but also, more particularly, the Court having fewer judicial officers to hear trials.
Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2007-08 to 2011-12
The number of Family Court judges has steadily decreased in recent years. During 2011-12, a new judge was appointed while three retired. Similar to the previous number of years, there remain two judicial vacant positions to be filled.
The decision not to fill all the retired positions combined with delays in those replacements in the past three years put pressure on the Court to maintain or increase the rate at which it can finalise cases with trials during 2011-12. Although the number of filings in the Court reduced further in 2011-12, such pressures are expected to continue into 2012-13 and beyond, with fewer judicial officers in the Court and the increasing complexity of cases that proceed to trial, meaning they take longer to finalise.
Figure 3.6 shows the decrease in the Court's judges in the past five years. The number of judges includes the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and judges assigned to the Appeal Division, whose main caseload is associated with appeals rather than first instance matters.
During 2011-12, the Court had the following finalisation targets:
The targets were based on the Court's historical achievements, its resource level including judges, the estimated new applications initiated each year and the number of active cases (pending).
Each application type requires a different level of court resource effort to resolve. For example, final orders applications and associated interim applications require more judicial effort to resolve, whereas consent order applications are mainly administration of cases where parties agree to terms prior to filing. The Court also deals with discrete applications, such as contraventions, contempt and applications made pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
During 2011-12, 3334 applications for final orders were finalised, about four per cent above the target but 12 per cent less than in 2010-11.
During 2011-12, 3544 interim applications (Application in a case) were finalised, about seven per cent less than the target and three per cent less than in 2010-11. Interim applications are associated with an existing case and can be dealt with relatively quickly.
During 2011-12, 10 454 consent orders applications were finalised, which is four per cent less than target and two per cent less than were finalised in 2010-11. These applications are the least complex of the Court's workload and are usually dealt with by a registrar not a judicial officer. There was only a small decrease in consent applications filed, therefore the reduced number finalised also reflects the reduction in filings.
Figures 3.7 to 3.10 display five year trends in filings, finalisations and pending (active) applications.
Figure 3.8 Applications in a case, 2007-08 to 2011-12
Figure 3.9 Consent orders applications, 2007-08 to 2011-12
The Court aims for a clearance rate of at least 100 per cent, that is, in a year to finalise at least the same number of cases that start. A clearance rate of at least 100 per cent or higher indicates that the Court is able to keep up with its new work and prevent an increase in its backlog of pending cases. In 2011-12, the Court achieved a clearance rate of more than 100 per cent.
Figures 3.11 show five year trends in clearance rates.
The backlog is the number of cases and applications that are pending (that is, still active) at the end of the year. These applications are waiting for a court event to occur or are being actively managed for their next court event. In particular, ageing applications that are beyond the timeliness target are a primary focus, the goal being to have them resolved as soon as practicable.
All courts have a backlog of active cases, this ensures a steady pending workload to manage as cases start and finalise during each month and year. The Family Court's goal is to ensure its pending cases are not excessively aged. If the Court can achieve a healthy distribution of old and new cases this helps ensure timely finalisation of cases. The Court deals with high conflict and complex cases, which will often take significant time to progress and obtain a decision. These types of cases are what make up the 'older' cases still pending in the court at any one time.
The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending applications less than 12 months old. At 30 June 2012, the Court nearly met this target by achieving 73 per cent of pending applications being less than 12 months old, compared with 70 per cent at 30 June 2011.
The Court continues to review each of its oldest active cases, particularly those older than 18 months, to better understand the causes of the delay and determine ways in which these could be dealt with more timely. This strategy is proving successful as highlighted by the significant reduction in the proportion of cases older than 12 months.
Figures 3.12 and 3.13 shows the five year trend in the age distribution of backlog applications.
After a trial, judges may reserve their decisions to consider the evidence and to deliver written reasons for their decisions. The Court aims to have reserved decisions delivered within three months after the trial or hearing. Its target is to have more than 75 per cent of matters awaiting a judgment to have been waiting no more than three months. The Court did not meet this target in 2011-12, with 50 per cent of judgments at 30 June 2012 less than three months old, therefore 50 per cent were more than three months. Unfortunately, this figure does not show that during the year the Court was able to achieve 77 per cent of its reserved judgments being delivered within three months (as described later in this section). Regrettably, towards the end of the year this performance could not be maintained and too many judgments outstanding became unavoidably delayed as a result of judges requiring to sit more in court, which reduced their ability to complete their reserved judgments. The Chief Justice will continue to monitor these matters and devise strategies to have judges deliver the judgment in a timely manner.
Figure 3.14 shows the five year trend in reserved judgments outstanding at 30 June each year, compared with the target of 75 per cent. Figure 3.15 shows the five year trend in time for reserved judgments outstanding at 30 June each year.
Figure 3.15 Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 30 June 2007-08 to 2011-12
The Court aims to finalise cases within a timely manner. It is, however, mindful that family law cases are particularly difficult and emotional, and the Family Court's decisions affect many lives, potentially for many years. Therefore, the Court also recognises the need to allow clients the time to deal with many emotions that a family breakdown and the court process can cause. It is difficult to set and achieve a timeliness target because the number of variables affecting the parties involved in each case has unquantifiable impacts on its progress towards a decision.
Although the Court does not have performance indicators in the Portfolio Budget Statements about the time to finalise cases, the Court continues to internally monitor the age of its finalised cases to assist with determining resource allocation and the effort required to dispose cases.
The Court's internal target for timeliness to finalisation is based on previous case history and its case management processes. The ability to get clients before the Court relies heavily on various factors: the Court's case management principles, delays between court interventions, available resources, and the clients. The Court aims to finalise 75 per cent of cases within 12 months, the other 25 per cent are the most complex cases, many of which cannot be expected to be managed within that timeframe.
During 2011-12, the Court finalised about 92 per cent applications within 12 months which is above the target and is steady over the past four years. The main reason for this was the quicker time in which the Court was able to finalise a number of the complex applications, such as final orders applications, but also a high proportion of less complex cases such as consent order applications.
Figures 3.16 and 3.17 show the five year trend in the age distribution of applications finalised.
Many judgments, especially interim or interlocutory, are delivered ex tempore, that is immediately at end of the trial or hearing. However, there are cases in which the presiding judicial officer will reserve judgment for delivery at a later date. This includes interlocutory judgments for which there has been an increased rate of demand by clients in recent years. So much so, that since 2009-10, the Court has recorded interlocutory judgments as well as final judgments in order to provide more complete reporting. (Prior to 2009-10, reserved judgment data related only to final judgments. Whilst data for earlier years is included here, it is shown for information purposes only and cannot be directly compared to the data for 2009-10 to 2011-12.)
The Court aims to deliver 75 per cent of reserved judgments within three months of the completion of a trial. The Court met this target in 2011-12 as 398 (77 per cent) of the 515 reserved judgments (excluding judgments on appeal cases) were delivered within that timeframe.
Figure 3.18 shows the five year trend of reserved judgments delivered within three months and Figure 3.19 shows time to deliver reserved judgments.
* from 2009-10 includes All judgments, 2005-09 were final judgments only
Figure 3.19 Reserved judgments,
time to deliver, 2007-08 to 2008-09 (final judgments only) and
2009-10 to 2011-12 (all judgments)
Judges are accountable through the public nature of their work, the requirement that they give reasons for their decisions, and the scrutiny of their decisions on appeal.
In 2011-12 the Court received 45 complaints relating to judges or judicial registrars - 28 concerning judicial conduct and 17 on the time taken in delivery of a judgment.
This represented 0.25 per cent of all applications filed (17 733), under the Portfolio Budget Statements target of one per cent (when judicial services complaints and administrative complaints are combined they total 0.6 per cent).
The number of judicial services complaints received by the Court in 2011-12 was less than in previous years, as shown in Figure 3.20. It also shows the breakdown between complaints about judicial conduct and complaints about delays.
The Court's Appeal Division deals with all Full Court appeals. The matters are from decrees of the Family Court of Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court.
Table 3.2 summarises the appeals workload; more information about appeals is in Part 4 of this report.
Table 3.2 Appeal caseload 2007-08 to 2011-12
| 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | % Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appeals filed | 349 | 364 | 315 | 328 | 373 | 14% |
| Appeals finalised | 318 | 361 | 345 | 325 | 332 | 2% |
| Appeals pending | 216 | 230 | 201 | 203 | 273 | 34% |
The Court monitors the proportion of self-represented litigants as one measure of the complexity of its caseload. Self-represented litigants add a layer of complexity because they need more assistance to navigate the court system and require additional help and guidance to abide by the Family Law Rules and procedures.
However, the use of legal representation can indicate that the parties consider their matter to be complex and best handled by legal representatives. Figures 3.21 and 3.22 show that the proportion of the Court's cases and trials involving legal representation have remained relatively steady for the past five years.
Figure 3.21 Proportion of litigants representation status, finalised cases, 2007-08 to 2011-12
Under section 60K of the Family Law Act, the Court must consider and take action on notices of or risk of abuse or family violence. The prescribed notice is to be considered within seven days and dealt with within 28 days of filing.
Figure 3.23 shows that the number of notices filed has declined in the past five years, although it appears now to be steady. The proportion of cases raising issues of abuse and family violence was on the rise, although it seems to have now steadied to be around ten to 12 per cent of cases (see Figure 3.24). Significant changes in the definition of what constitutes 'family violence' came into law on 7 June 2012. The Court will monitor the impacts of these changes and the affects on the filing of notices regarding risk of abuse and family violence.
Figure 3.24 Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence is filed, 2007-08 to 2011-12
Magellan cases involve allegations of serious physical abuse or sexual abuse of a child and undergo special case management. When a Magellan case is identified, it is managed by a small team consisting of a judge, a registrar and a family consultant. Magellan case management relies on collaborative and highly coordinated processes and procedures. A crucial aspect is strong interagency coordination, in particular with state and territory child protection agencies. This ensures that problems are dealt with efficiently and that high-quality information is shared. An independent children's lawyer is appointed in every Magellan case, for which legal aid is uncapped.
Typically, a Magellan case is one where a notice of abuse or family violence is filed, although not all notices will necessarily result in the case being classified as a Magellan matter.
Figure 3.25 details the number of Magellan cases commenced and finalised in the past five years.
Figure 3.25 Magellan cases, 2007-08 to 2011-12
Registry services are provided to people who wish to file an application or are considering filing an application at the Family Law Courts (comprising the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court).
Registry services include:
They are complemented by the services of the National Enquiry Centre (NEC), to which all 1300 telephone calls go automatically and all emails in the first instance, as well as follow up enquiries from clients about their Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court files.
Family law registries and the NEC provided a high level of service to clients and other users of the Family Law Courts and to judges and federal magistrates during 2011-12. They responded to increased demand - so more counter enquiries, more emails and more phone calls - and had improved performance in meeting deliverables and performance indicators.
They met all three client services Portfolio Budget Statement deliverables related to counter, email and telephone enquiries. Three of the four key performance indicators (KPI) were also met. The fourth KPI, with a target of 80 per cent of telephone calls to the NEC being answered in 90 seconds, was not met, however a significant improvement was made in the average times that callers waited on line for their calls to be taken, compared with 2010-11. A number of factors contributed to this, including the implementation of an Interactive Voice Responsive system that helps direct callers more effectively, including to other sources of information, and improved support for staff, which enables them to more quickly respond to callers.
The KPI for complaints as a percentage of total applications was met this year, unlike last year.
More detailed reporting of the results follows.
Table 3.3 summarises the performance of the various client services functions of the Court against PBS key performance indicators and deliverables. Please note the data in this table relates to services provided for both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court by the family law registries and the NEC, with the exception of the complaints KPI, which is Family Court specific.
| Key performance indicators and deliverables | Target/deliverable | 2010-11 target/result | 2011-12 result | 2011-12 target achieved |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deliverables | ||||
| Counter enquiries | 161 800 counter enquiries handled | 159,500/150,156 | 187,665 | |
| Telephone enquiries* | 253 800 telephone enquiries | 359,800/378,420 | 267,995 | |
| Email enquiries | 53 900 email enquiries | 53,200/50,052 | 83,700* | |
| KPIs** | ||||
| Counter enquiries | 75% of all counter enquiries are served within 20 minutes | 75%/97% | 88% | |
| Time taken to process applications lodged | 75% of applications lodged are processed within two working days | 75%/97% | 97% | |
| NEC telephone calls answered | 80% of calls answered within 90 seconds | 80%/32% | 33% | |
| Email response times | 80% of emails answered within two days | 80%/98% | 100% | |
| Complaints | Complaints - 1% of total applications received | 1%/2% | 0.6%** | |
Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for greater transparency in its reporting for judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.1 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.
There are 19 family law registries. These are in every state and territory (except Western Australia). Family law registries provide registry services to both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court and are staffed permanently. The key functions of the registries are to:
Staff working on the counters in family law registries handle general enquiries, lodge documents relating to proceedings, provide copies of documents and/or orders and facilitate the viewing of court files and subpoenas. Client service staff provided an efficient and effective service when dealing with litigants in person and the legal profession face-to-face at registry counters across Australia (except Western Australia).
During 2011-12, the family law registries continued to provide a high level of service and met noticeably increased volumes of counter enquiries.
As detailed in Table 3.3, it is estimated that the registries dealt with 187 665 counter enquiries in 2011-12 from clients or other people seeking information face-to-face. This compared to 150 156 in 2010-11. In fact, the actual numbers would have exceeded this, as in a number of the smaller registries facilities are not available for counting of enquiries.
In 2011-12, an estimated 90 per cent of clients were served within 20 minutes, against a target of 75 per cent. This is down on the estimated figure for 2010-11.
Family law registries receive and process applications lodged at registry counters and in the mail. The service target of 75 per cent being processed within two working days of receipt was significantly exceeded (97 per cent of applications were processed within that timeframe, compared to 97 per cent in 2010-11).
The NEC provides a wide range of enquiry and support services for first instance enquiries and enquiries from clients related to their Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court files. Through the courts' 1300 telephone number all calls automatically go to the NEC, as do emails using the address enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.au. The NEC also prints and posts all divorce orders made by the two courts (there were 85 532 in 2011-12).
In addition, it is also the first point of contact for:
In 2011-12, the NEC made significant performance improvements compared with 2010-11. A key factor was the introduction of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system in October 2011. It provides a second tier for helping to direct callers to the most effective and efficient service for their particular needs, being in addition to the initial recorded message.
If they do not choose to go elsewhere for information at that initial stage, the IVR gives options for more specific direction of calls, including, for example, to divert callers to staff with particular skill sets. In addition to the IVR, the NEC embraced the courts' use of the Connections technology (see Part 2 for more detail on this), which improved the efficiency of staff with the electronic sharing of information and improved capability to email clients immediately with relevant information and links. There was an 82 per cent increase in the volume of emails sent in 2011-12 compared with 2010-11. This also reflects how the NEC's approaches to caller needs evolved during the year, particularly in response to the greatly increased use of emails and smart phones in the community.
These improvements not only had benefits for clients, lawyers and others who contact the courts, but also there were consequential benefits for the costs of the NEC. For example, the reduced times people spent on hold, waiting to be answered resulted in significant reductions in the monthly telephone bills attributable to the 1300 number. Postage costs also benefited from the increased use of email.
These improvements mean that in 2011-12, the NEC met two of its three PBS deliverables (for telephone enquiries served and email responses made).
In summary, in 2011-12 the NEC:
The NEC did not achieve against the deliverable for the time taken to answer calls. The target is for 80 per cent of calls to be answered in 90 seconds. In 2011-12, the NEC answered 88,931 calls within 90 seconds, taking an average of three minutes and 15 seconds for calls to be answered. This time was halved compared to 2010-11. Key factors in achieving this improvement included the IVR and the use of the Connections technology, which provides NEC staff with better access to the information needed to respond more quickly and also provides them with better capability for sending emails in response to telephone calls.
Key factors that contributed to the NEC's inability to meet the deliverable include:
Table 3.4 summarises the NEC's performance against internal benchmarks.
| Performance indicators and internal targets | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 5% of calls abandoned when queued | 2% | 18% | 24% | 8% |
| Less than 10% of calls transferred to a registry | 5% | 4% | 2% | 1% |
The Family Court is committed to responding effectively to feedback and complaints, and to complying with Australian Standard AS 4269 - 1995 (Complaints handling) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Good Practice Guide for Effective Complaint Handling.
The Court's client feedback management system allows all areas of the Court to efficiently and consistently manage complaints and client feedback, while also identifying clients' issues and monitoring trends.
The Court has:
The judicial complaints procedure and the fact sheet explain how clients can make a complaint or provide feedback to the Court. These can be found on the Family Court website www.familycourt.gov.au and accessed via the feedback link in the 'Quick Links' section of the home-page.
Clients can address complaints or feedback to the Court in writing, orally, or by email to enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.au. Complaints made about judicial delays or judicial conduct will be referred to the Judicial Complaints Adviser.
The Court aims to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days and, where possible, to send a formal response within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.
During 2011-12, the Family Court recorded:
At 65, the number of administrative complaints represented 0.36 per cent of all applications received. Combined with 45 judicial complaints (see the section 'Judicial services complaints' for more detail) complaints represented 0.6 per cent of applications received, thus achieving against the KPI (for complaints to be no more than one per cent of applications received).
Figure 3.26 provides a breakdown across 10 categories of administrative complaints issues in 2012-12.
During 2011-12, the Court also recorded 132 complaints about such matters as family law legislation, matters in other jurisdictions, family assessments and reports prepared by family consultants for judicial proceedings, and the conduct and outcomes of judicial proceedings. These are matters that may not be addressed by the administration of the Court as they concern matters of law reform on the one hand, and the conduct of specific judicial proceedings on the other.
As a result of client feedback during 2011-12, aside from issues being resolved for clients on an individual basis, registries reviewed staff training on mail-out procedures and correspondence management, and the National Enquiry Centre introduced an extra step to improve the procedure around communication regarding notification of change of contact details for telephone hearings.