Aldridge and Tait and Anor

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ALDRIDGE & TAIT & ANOR [2013] FCCA 1422

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Long delay in bringing application – Father not spending time with the children – consideration of “special circumstances” – de facto Wife hiding child support assessments from de facto Husband – role of McKenzie friend to support not to advocate.

Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.111, 112(4), 117(1), (2), (4), (5)

Gilmour & Gilmour (1995) FLC ¶92-591
Gyselman & Gyselman (1991) 103 FLR 156; (1992) FLC ¶92-279
Hides v Hatton (1997) 139 FLR 91, 21 Fam LR 855, FLC ¶92-759
N v M (2005) FMCAfam 484
Watson & Watson (2001) 166 FLR 229; (2001) 28 Fam LR 481; (2002) FLC ¶93-094; [2001] FamCA 1470

Applicant: MR ALDRIDGE

First Respondent: MS TAIT

Second Respondent: MS SCOTT

File Number: CAC 840 of 2008

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: 12 July 2013

Date of Last Submission: 12 July 2013

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 6 September 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Self Represented

Solicitors for the Applicant: Not applicable

Counsel for the Respondents: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: No appearance

ORDERS

1. The Application filed 26 November 2012 is dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

3. The matter be removed from the docket.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Aldridge & Tait & Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 840 of 2008

MR ALDRIDGE

Applicant

And

MS TAIT

First Respondent

MS SCOTT

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 6^th September 2013 I provided oral reasons and pronounced orders dismissing the Application that was filed on 26^th November 2012. The reasons that follow have been revised from the transcript.

2. The Respondent Mothers to the current Application have not engaged with these proceedings.  The First Respondent, who is the party most directly affected by the Application has been served with the Application.  There are, in fact, Affidavits of Service and Acknowledgements of Service on the Court file in relation to both Respondents.  The Applicant is a self-represented litigant.

3. By leave, I granted Ms W permission to appear with Mr Aldridge as a “McKenzie friend” on the basis that the Applicant has some hearing and other difficulties.[1]  He is on a disability pension.  While she did not present his case, both during the hearing and since, Ms W is both forthright and persistent in the prosecution of Mr Aldridge’s case.  She informed the Court that she acts voluntarily on behalf of a number of people in situations similar to Mr Aldridge.  At times Ms W’s advocacy post the hearing has been well beyond the proper ambit of a McKenzie friend from one of support to one of strong advocacy.  I will say no more about this subject, save that Mr Aldridge responded to any questions asked of him in the course of the hearing without any apparent difficulty.