CLAYTON & BANT

[2015] FamCA 91

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CLAYTON & BANT [2015] FamCA 91

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment to orders by consent of the parties pursuant to the slip rule

APPLICANT: Ms Clayton

RESPONDENT: Mr Bant

FILE NUMBER: LEC 310 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 20 February 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 20 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Lloyd SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: GJ Legal Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Kirk QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Watts McCray Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:

1. Pursuant to Rule 17.02 of the Family Law Rules 2004, Order 24 of the Orders made by the Honourable Justice Kent on 19 November 2013 be amended to read as follows:

“All parenting applications be otherwise dismissed and removed from the pending cases list.”

1. Each party’s costs of today’s appearance be reserved.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Clayton & Bant 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: LEC310 of 2013

Ms Clayton

Applicant

And

Khalid Bant

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. To the extent that it be necessary to do so I express that I am satisfied that, as it would seem the parties are likewise satisfied, that the only orders that were intended to be made on 19 November 2013 were orders in the parenting proceedings. There were no property issues agitated before me in the trial leading to those orders.

2. There is no exercise of discretion involved in me amending paragraph 24 of the orders because, as the authorities make clear, had it been brought to my attention at the time there is no doubt I would have made it clear that all I was seeking to do was to bring an end to the parenting applications, that being the only issue that was before me.

3. I reserve the costs of both parties for today’s appearance.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 20 February 2015.

Associate:

Date:  20 February 2015