Deerborne and Firkom (No 2)

[2011] FamCA 685

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DEERBORNE & FIRKOM (NO 2) [2011] FamCA 685

FAMILY LAW – PROCESS AND PROCEDURE – Intervenor joins

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Deerborne

RESPONDENT: Mr Firkom

INTERVENER: S Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10945 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 10 June 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 10 June 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Isokof

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Isakow Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENER: Ms Heeley

SOLICITOR FOR THE INTERVENER: Johansson Solicitors

ORDERS

1. That S Pty Ltd have leave to intervene in these proceedings.

2. That S Pty Ltd file and serve an application initiating proceedings setting out with precision what orders it is seeking by 4.00pm on 24 June 2011.

3. That all outstanding applications are adjourned for final hearing as a two day matter to commence on 30 November 2011. 

4. By 1 October 2011, the applicant pay any filing and setting down fees.

5. That all parties have leave to issue subpoenae by arrangement with the Registrar.

6. That by 4.00pm on 7 November 2011, each party serve notice upon the other of any objections to evidence concerning the affidavit material filed and a response admitting or denying such objection be served on all other parties by 4.00pm on 19 November 2011.

7. That the costs of this day be reserved.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

1. That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Deerborne and Firkom (No 2) has been approved by the Chief Jutice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MCL 10945 of 2010

Ms Deerborne

Applicant

And

Mr Firkom

Respondent

S Pty Ltd

Intervener

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed on 5 May 2011 for an interim order which is returnable today seeking, effectively, an amendment to an injunction made by Smithers J on 17 December 1991. 

2. The evidence that supports that application seeks the Court accept that a man under the direction of the husband, was engaged to effectively harass the wife.  The evidence of the wife is that Mr M told her that he was paid by the husband.  The husband denies that and says that whilst he certainly engaged Mr M, who was in Australia whilst he was in Country A, it was to make some inquiries about Supreme Court proceedings. 

3. Section 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires a court to be satisfied that it is proper to make an order in the circumstances. There is already an order in existence.

   On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied in the circumstances          that it would be proper to make an order varying that order, certainly in     terms of the application sought by the wife today.  The application for          variation is dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 10 June 2011.

Associate:  Elizabeth Hore

Date:  14 July 2011