Campotelli and Campotelli

[2011] FamCA 1047

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAMPOTELLI & CAMPOTELLI [2011] FamCA 1047

FAMILY LAW – Adjournment of applications for interim orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Campotelli

RESPONDENT: Mr Campotelli

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12029 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 26 July 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 26 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Dixon SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Lander & Rogers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr P Davis

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Schetzer Constantinou

Orders

1. That the respective applications for interim orders are adjourned to the Judicial Duty List on 9 August 2011 at 10.00am before the Honourable Justice Young with a request that he give the matter such priority in that list as he is able to so give.

2. That paragraph 1 of the orders made on 23 May 2011 continue until the adjourned hearing date.

3. That both parties’ costs of this day be reserved.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym  Campotelli & Campotelli 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 12029 of 2010

Ms Campotelli

Applicant

And

Mr Campotelli

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I propose to grant the adjournment in this case only on the basis that, notwithstanding it appears that it could be dealt with on the papers, the papers that I would be dealing with are, in fact, including materials filed on 22 July upon which I accept what Mr Dixon says, he and his instructor have not had an opportunity to obtain instructions about.  That puts him in an invidious position that he would not be able to comment upon the material of the husband.  That necessitates, unfortunately, an adjournment and as the parties know, I do not grant adjournments lightly in these lists, but I see no alternative in a case such as this particularly having regard to the circumstances in which it’s accepted the wife was injured on the weekend. 

2. The other dilemma is the question of what happens during the interim period having regard to the fact that paragraph 1 of the orders of 23 May referred to spousal maintenance being paid until the adjourned date which is obviously today.  Looking at the material of the husband to determine that issue is a little risky in the sense that it’s unchallenged material but on any view I can see how the shortfall in income, or rather liabilities and expenditure over income arises by reference to the attachment to the back of the financial statement.  Many of the items there are clearly estimates and averaged out over the year and, therefore, for the purposes of a two to three week adjournment I would have thought that would not be difficult to see the husband forgoing the payment of such things as gardening expenses and utilities on properties other than the home.

3. In those circumstances, it seemed logical that the maintenance that was ordered on 23 May continue until the adjourned date, albeit that it will be for a relatively short period of time, particularly also having regard to the fact that although that was an order of the Court, it was an order to which the husband consented.

RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

ORDERS DELIVERED

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 26 July 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  11 January 2012