Batey-Elton and Elton (No 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BATEY-ELTON & ELTON (NO. 2) [2010] FamCA 271

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – Injunction excluding person remaining in court on behavioural grounds

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

MG and MG [2000] FamCA 893; (2000) FLC 93-034
Mullen and Hackney London Borough Council [1997] 2 All ER 906
Raybos Australia Pty Ltd and Jones [1985] 2 NSWLR 47
Watson and Watson [2001] FamCA 1470; (2002) FLC 93-094

Halsbury’s Laws of Australia

APPLICANT: Ms Batey-Elton

RESPONDENT: Mr Elton

FILE NUMBER: TVF 2250 of 2004

DATE DELIVERED: 15 FEBRUARY 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE: 15 FEBRUARY 2010

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: IN PERSON

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR PAGE SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: ROD MADSEN

Orders

1. That until further order MR B is restrained from being in the court room of this Court during any proceedings between Mr Elton and Ms Batey-Elton.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: TVF 2250  of 2004

MS BATEY-ELTON

Applicant

And

MR ELTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr B appears to be providing advice and assistance to the wife in these proceedings.  For reasons which follow, I excluded him from being present in the court room on 15 February 2010 and made injunctions against him being present in any future court room involving these proceedings.

2. It is a drastic step to exclude any person from a court room but particularly a person who may be providing constructive assistance to a litigant in person.  Except in certain circumstances, proceedings in this Court should be held in open court.  Although anonymity attaches to all proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), it is a fundamental tenet of justice that it be transparent. That however, must be subject to the right of the Court to control its process and ensure that proceedings are not disrupted not only to the disadvantage of the litigants but also to the resources of the Court.

3. Mr B is a disruptive influence.

4. In August 2009, I conduct proceedings relating to parenting orders between Ms Batey-Elton and Mr Elton and gave reasons for judgment.  At that time, Mr B was providing some form of assistance to the wife.  I made final parenting orders which have not been the subject of an appeal.   

5. In my reasons for judgment, I said a number of things about Mr B.  They were:

   ·    The wife is in a relationship with Mr B;

   ·    I was told by senior counsel for the husband that Mr B purports to be a lawyer;

   ·    Mr B has apparently accompanied the wife for a long time in these proceedings;

   ·    At various times he has endeavoured to speak for her and assist her;

   ·    Senior counsel for the husband alleged that Mr B…