Crantelli and Crantelli

[2007] FamCA 1201

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CRANTELLI & CRANTELLI [2007] FamCA 1201

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application – Dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Crantelli

RESPONDENT: Mrs Crantelli

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3475 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 13 July 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 13 July 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:  No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr McCaulley

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. The application in a case form 2 filed 15 May 2007 by the husband be dismissed.

2. That the response to the application in the case, form 2A filed 5 June 2007 by the wife be dismissed.

3. The reasons for judgment this day be transcribed.

4. A copy of the reasons for judgment be made available to both parties.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3475 of 2007

MR CRANTELLI

Applicant                   

And

MRS CRANTELLI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter I have before me a Form 2 application in the case filed by the husband on 15 May 2007, and a response to that application filed on 5 June 2007 by the wife through her legal practitioners.

2. It is now 10.35am on the first return date of the matter before me, and the husband, who has represented himself for some considerable period of time in these proceedings, has been called outside of the Court and has not attended.  Accordingly, I have been asked to proceed on the basis that he is not desirous of participating.

3. The matter has a tragic background which is ironically succinctly set out in the affidavit that the husband has filed with this application, and I shall turn to that in a moment. 

4. The documents appear remarkably like copies of documents that have been filed with the Court on previous occasions.  For example, the first attachment bears the date 3 February 2007. It is clear from the first of the documents that the husband is angry, frustrated and disappointed about what happened to him in a trial which I perceived to have taken place before Steele J.  I say “perceived” because at times it is hard to follow just who the husband is referring to.

5. My interpretation of what he says is that the Court process and all of the parties, including his wife, the lawyers and apparently other people as well, were all participants in a giant conspiracy to take his money away from him.  Sad as that may be, it is hard to see how I can discern anything from the document that might tell me exactly what his complaint is about the Registrar's decision on costs.  That may be compounded by the fact that, as I said, the document is dated 3 February 2007 and it may therefore have been in fact prepared for the Registrar.

6. The second attachment is in fact a little easier to read, but it is longer. It seems to be more a commentary upon the orders made by the Full Court. I have therefore gleaned that after the hearing before Steele J, the husband exercised his rights and went before the Full Court and clearly lost because the indication is in the letter, which is of some pages in length, that he should not have had to have paid all of the costs that not only Steele J ordered him to pay, but also those of the Full Court. 

7. If the matter had proceeded today, it is quite clear that I would have had to have asked the husband to address the provisions in the rules because it is not my function to try and discern what he is arguing about. At best I suspect he would have had to have applied to adjourn the proceedings to another day to get his house in order. But if any indication can be drawn from the two attachments, I suspect that there really is little foundation for what he says. 

8. As I pointed out, he has this view about all of the participants in the process, but he has also taken a very strong view that the costs issues are unreasonable, and exorbitant.  Without having the precise details of exactly what the Registrar was working on, assisted by the husband’s directions as to what he is complaining about, I am unable to make any determination about what that is about.

9. In the response to the application, the wife has sought an order under s 118 of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), effectively to restrain the husband from filing or continuing any application under the Act in which the wife or her lawyers are listed as respondents without leave of the Court. In discussion with Mr McCaulley on behalf of the wife, it was conceded that probably the door has already been shut on the husband in respect of most matters, as there are no parenting issues and the property issues are now well and truly finished. The only avenue open to the husband, I suspect, relates to the issue of costs. And by my orders today, dismissing his application, he would have great difficulty now endeavouring to review those particular orders of the Registrar.

10. But sensibly, Mr McCaulley has indicated that in hindsight, having regard to the limited number of opportunities that the husband now has to bring further proceedings, bringing in an application for him to be declared restrained from bringing further proceedings is probably pointless, and I agree. 

11. I want to make it clear that I am not dismissing the husbands application on its merits but I am very clear in saying that it is hard to see how he has any arguable case to complain about. 

12. In the circumstances I make two orders, and they are as follows.

13. I want to add a further paragraph to the judgment in relation to the question of costs.  This is a case where Mr McCaulley for the wife has indicated he does not propose to seek costs, having regard to the fact that that was the very reason we were here in the first place and it may just exacerbate the position, and I commend him for his sensible approach in not seeking costs in these circumstances. 

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate

Date:  24 September 2007