Cattini and Hunt

[2012] FamCA 416

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CATTINI & HUNT [2012] FamCA 416

FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Contravention – Failure to register at a contact centre – Application withdrawn by leave

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Cattini

RESPONDENT: Ms Hunt

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: BRC 9573 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 28 May 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 28 May 2012

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Bayliss, Powell Bayliss Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Cooke

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Tolhurst Druce & Emmerson

Orders

1. That the application filed 13 April 2012 as to contravention is withdrawn by leave.

2. That there be no order as to costs.

3. That all extant applications for final orders are listed for a FIRST DAY OF HEARING before the Honourable Justice Cronin at 10.00am on 4 June 2012.

4. That the parties and if represented, their legal practitioners, attend the first day of hearing.

5. That notwithstanding applications/responses have already been filed:

   a)by 4 pm on 31 May 2012, the Applicant file and serve on all other parties, an amended application setting out with precision the orders to be sought at trial; and

   b)by 4 pm on 31 May 2012, the Respondent(s) file and serve on all other parties, an amended response setting out with precision the orders to be sought at trial.

6. To the extent that the Independent Children’s Lawyer has a firm position as to intended proposed orders, the Independent Children’s Lawyer advise each party of those proposed and on the return date, present to the Court a copy of those orders.

7. That the solicitor for both the husband and the wife forthwith notify the Independent Children’s Lawyer of the making of this order and of the discussion that has occurred this day.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Cattini & Hunt 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: BRC 9573 of 2010

Mr Cattini

Applicant

And

Ms Hunt

Respondent

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed on 13 April 2012 by Mr Cattini, to whom I shall refer as the father, against Ms Hunt, to whom I shall refer as the mother.

2. The contravention application asserts that the mother failed to comply with an order made 30 November 2011 in that she failed thereafter to register, pursuant to the order’s requirements, at a contact centre so that the children’s contact under supervision with their father might commence.

3. The evidence is less than satisfactory, but between the parties they have managed to reach agreement this morning such that the contravention application should be withdrawn.

4. The respondent, who is not present, but represented by her solicitor, seeks an order for costs.  She asserts that she is obliged to make an application because she’s funded by Legal Aid.  The applicant, in response, opposes an order for costs because he’s represented by Legal Aid.

5. The absurdity of this situation is that it seems that everybody knew about this at least two weeks ago, and as such this has been a complete waste of the court’s time, let alone the parties’ time and also the funding for Legal Aid.

6. Section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) says that each party shall bear their own costs unless there are circumstances that justify a departure from that principle.  Neither party has clean hands in the circumstances.

7. Accordingly, there will be no order for costs.

8. The application filed on 13 April 2004 is otherwise withdrawn.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 28 May 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  6 June 2012