Catipani and Reneri

[2008] FamCA 986

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CATIPANI & RENERI [2008] FamCA 986

FAMILY LAW – CUSTODY – Discharge from custody

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Catipani

RESPONDENT: Mr Reneri

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3712 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 18 November 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE: 18 NOVEMBER 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: NO APPEARANCE

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: DAVIS ZUCCO LAWYERS

THE RESPONDENT: IN PERSON IN CUSTODY

Orders

1. That the husband be forthwith discharged from custody.

2. That paragraph 2 of the orders made on 23 September 2008 be forthwith discharged.

3. That reasons for these orders be transcribed and placed on the court file.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3712  of 2008

MS CATIPANI

Applicant

And

MR RENERI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter came to me in the afternoon of 18 November 2008. 

2. The husband was in custody of the Australian Federal Police.  He was arrested at 12.50pm on a warrant issued out of the Registry on 24 September 2008. 

3. On 23 September 2008, Watts J made an order that pursuant to Rule 15.36 a warrant issue to the Marshals and all members of the Australian Federal Police to arrest the husband and bring him before the Court.  Ironically, the order also noted that the wife consented to the husband being then released upon his own recognizance on condition he return to the Court on a date to be fixed by the Court with document referred to in the subpoena filed on 5 September 2008. 

4. It would appear that between 24 September 2008 and now, the parties sorted out a number of the issues between them.  For example, there is a Registrar’s hearing record for 7 October 2008 in which the wife’s lawyer advised the Registrar that the husband had provided as many documents as he could.

5. On 7 October 2008, the parties consented to orders, the husband appearing in person, relating to the filing of an affidavit as to what documents he had in his possession or control and it would appear from the file record that the husband in fact did do that.

6. On 23 October 2008, the parties were before the Court on the husband’s application for a divorce.

7. On 13 November 2008, the matter was back before Registrar Field in relation to subpoena and other financial issues. 

8. In all of this time, it would appear that the live warrant was overlooked.

9. I was advised by the Registrar that she had contacted the solicitors for the wife who said they no longer sought the orders of Watts J and accordingly, with the husband’s consent as well, I discharged him notwithstanding the order requiring him to be released on bail.

10. The order has therefore been discharged and the warrant having been executed, the husband is formally released from custody.

I certify that the preceding Ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  18 November 2008