Bletch and Douglas

[2013] FamCA 527

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLETCH & DOUGLAS [2013] FamCA 527

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Respondent mother to pay applicant father’s costs

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Bletch

RESPONDENT: Ms Douglas

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5587 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 12 July 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Aldridge J

HEARING DATE: 12 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Karras Partners Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. It is noted that the Applicant Father does not wish to proceed with his Initiating Application filed on 19 September 2013 and accordingly that application is hereby dismissed.

2. That the Response to an Initiating Application filed on 27 September 2012 is hereby dismissed.

3. That all applications and cross applications shall be and are hereby dismissed.

4. That all issues shall be removed from the Active Pending Cases List.

5. That the Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs from 22 November 2012 as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed under the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5587 of 2012

Mr Bletch

Applicant

And

Ms Douglas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The reasons were delivered orally.

2. In this matter the father filed an Initiating Application on 19 September 2012.  In the circumstances that have occurred he no longer seeks to proceed with that application.

3. On 27 September 2012 the mother filed a Response seeking not only a permanent stay of the father’s application but an order restraining him from making any further applications without the leave of the court.

4. The mother has failed to file a Case Information document as directed by the Registrar on 12 April 2013 and 4 June 2013.  The mother did not appear before the Registrar when the matter was listed on 4 June 2013 and her lawyers have failed to respond to correspondence from the father’s solicitor and there is no appearance by her before me today.

Conclusion

1. In those circumstances I make the orders as set out herein.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge delivered on insert 12 July 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  15 July 2013