Auden and Auden and Anor

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUDEN & AUDEN AND ANOR [2018] FamCA 831

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to reopen – where judgment as to interim property orders is reserved – where the wife seeks to reopen her case to tender documents and make further submissions – discussion as to applicable principles – Where the interests of justice are served by dismissing the wife’s application in a case.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 80(i)

Strahan & Strahan [2009] FamCAFC 166,
Stephens & Stephens & Ors (enforcement) (2009) Fam LR 42

APPLICANT: Ms Auden

RESPONDENT: Mr Auden

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr B Auden

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3319 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 17 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Hannam J

HEARING DATE: 12 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Campton SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mills Oakley Lawyers

RESPONDENT: Appeared in person

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: Ms Gillies SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: Lander & Rogers

Orders

1. The wife’s Application in a Case filed 17 August 2018 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Auden & Auden and Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3319 of 2017

Ms Auden

Applicant

And

Mr Auden

Respondent

And

Mr B Auden
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The husband and wife are engaged in parenting and property proceedings following the breakdown of their 17 year marriage.  The paternal grandfather (“the second respondent”) has intervened in the property proceedings.  He contends that considerable sums of money were advanced by him to the husband alone and the husband and wife throughout the marriage which gives rise to him having an interest in the proceeds of sale of the family home, the only significant item of matrimonial property.

2. On 14 August 2018 I heard interim applications (“the interim hearing") in relation to both parenting and property. 

3. Subsequent to the interim hearing various documents were provided by the husband and second respondent by way of disclosure to the Applicant wife’s legal representatives.  The Applicant wife seeks to reopen the interim property proceedings to tender a number of the documents that were provided to her subsequent to the interim hearing and other documents that she contends were not available to her at the interim hearing.

4. The husband and second respondent oppose the wife’s application to reopen the proceedings on the basis that the interests of justice do not require that…