Ansem and Ollam

[2010] FamCA 1201

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANSEM & OLLAM [2010] FamCA 1201

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Ansem

RESPONDENT: Ms Ollam

FILE NUMBER: MLC 377 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 15 December 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 15 December 2010

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That the contravention application of the wife is adjourned to 25 January 2011 in the Registrar’s list of cases at 12 noon.

2. That the reasons this day are to be transcribed and made available to the parties.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 377 of 2009

MR ANSEN

Applicant

And

MS OLLAM

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 15 November 2010, the applicant wife filed a contravention application against the husband, returnable today.  The application alleges breaches of an order made on 6 April 2010 relating to financial issues.  It would appear the contravention application has been served because on the court file are two letters, one written by the respondent in which he wrote to the Court asking for the hearing to be postponed because he would be overseas on business.  Apart from anything else, he says that he is addressing the two issues complained about by the wife.  He then said that he had forwarded a copy of the letter to his wife for her to countersign, but she declined. 

2. Notwithstanding that, the wife then wrote to the court saying she was notified that her husband would be in Germany on 15 December:

   As [the husband] is the only person that can action the outstanding items, I believe it would be more appropriate to postpone the hearing to another date. 

3. It seems everybody is content with that course of action and there is no logical reason why the matter should come back into the judicial duty list because it is obviously not urgent.  The parties seem to be able to sort their own problems out without spending time in court.  Accordingly, what I will do is send it back to a registrar to deal with, and the registrar, in due course, can decide whether there is any urgency about the matter at all. 

4. In passing, I might add, for the benefit of the parties, that it is totally inappropriate for them to deal with the Court on the basis that they have in this case.

5. In the matter of Ollam & Ansen, I adjourn the proceedings to 25 January 2011 in the registrars list at 12 noon, and I have ordered the reasons be transcribed and made available to the parties.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 15 December 2010.

Associate: 

Date:  31 December 2010