Desprez and Desprez (No 2)

[2015] FamCA 868

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DESPREZ & DESPREZ (NO 2) [2015] FamCA 868

FAMILY LAW – Applications and responses struck out for want of prosecution

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Desprez

RESPONDENT: Mr Desprez

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3066 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 6 October 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 6 October 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That the application of the applicant and the response thereto both seeking final orders are struck out for want of prosecution. 

2. That the reasons this day be transcribed and be placed on the court file. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Desprez & Desprez (No 2) 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: MLC 3066  of 2014

Ms Desprez

Applicant

And

Mr Desprez

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter came before me on 30 March, and culminated in a judgment of 2 April.  Those proceedings at that time were a dispute between the parties ostensibly about two things.  The first related to the parenting of children;  and the second related to property proceedings.  The nub of the proceedings on that day was an argument over forum non conveniens. 

2. On 2 April this year, I made an order permanently staying the application by the wife for orders under part VIII of the Family Law Act on the basis that the proper forum was Country C. The irony of that was that the parties had also parenting proceedings alive, which were not the subject of the dispute that day.

3. In my reasons for judgment at paragraph 39 that day I said, “The wife’s application” – and I interpolate here, in relation to parenting:

   …is extant, but the husband has not been pressed, other than by senior counsel on his feet, to indicate his position.  It seems to me that having regard to what the family consultant expert said, along with the ages of the children, the husband’s own concession that his relationship is currently not good with the children, there is unlikely to be any parenting dispute in which the Court is required to make any determination.

4. I therefore bifurcated the proceedings.  In a totally unrelated matter some days ago, Ms Stoikovska of counsel, who apparently was junior counsel to Mr Kirkham on 30 March, indicated to me that as far as she was aware, the children had returned to Country C and parenting was no longer an issue.  Whilst that does not obviate the responsibility of lawyers to file notices of no further action or involvement by the lawyers – and that does not seem to have happened here – it seems to me that I can conclude that the court’s involvement is no further necessary.  On that basis, the respective applications and responses are struck out for want of prosecution.  I order that the reasons be transcribed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 6 October 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  19 October 2015