Docklands and Mashman (No 4)

[2011] FamCA 756

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DOCKLANDS & MASHMAN (NO 4) [2011] FamCA 756

FAMILY LAW – Writ of Possession

APPLICANT: Mr Docklands

RESPONDENT: Ms Mashman

FILE NUMBER: CAC 398 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 21 July 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Faulks DCJ

HEARING DATE: 21 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Moore

Orders

1. The restriction on the Writ of Possession being enforced is lifted and will now be enforced.  I see no reason to change any of the other orders I have made. 

2. The matter is removed from the pending cases inventory. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Docklands & Mashman 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 CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 398 of 2009

Mr Docklands

Applicant

And

Ms Mashman

Respondent

EX-TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the order that I made on 13 July 2011 was on the basis that at that time Mr Docklands had been unable to be served with the relevant process that had been put before me.  The purpose of the orders made on that day was to provide an opportunity for Mr Docklands to respond to the application that had been made seeking that he be required to vacate the premises that were required to be sold in accordance with the orders I made at the completion of the contested hearing on 7 March 2011.  Those orders provided, among other things, that the applicant, Mr Docklands, forthwith provide vacant possession of the property known as B Street, Suburb C in the Australian Capital Territory, and will provide forthwith all keys to the premises of D Legal.

2. It was also provided, in order 4 made on that day, that the respondent is declared to be the trustee for sale of the Suburb C property and shall proceed to sell the property as expeditiously as possible, and required her and her legal representatives to do all such things as may be necessary to bring about the sale of the Suburb C property until completion of the sale.  Orders were made about the distribution of property.  It appears from Mr Docklands’s material filed in this court, which he did after he was served with the order I had made on 13 July, that he has, in fact, been continuing to be involved in the process relating to the sale of the house, and it would appear also that he has not vacated.

3. On the last occasion I made an order based on the evidence I had at that point that the officers of the Australian Federal Police should take such steps as may be necessary to give effect to the order I previously made.  I allowed that to lie in office until such time as Mr Docklands had had an opportunity to be heard.  In his affidavit filed on 18 July 2011, Mr Docklands engaged in significant vituperation about a series of matters, most of which were not relevant to the proceedings that are before the court on this occasion.

4. I note that Mr Docklands did not appeal against the orders that had been made previously, including the order that he vacate the premises, and including the order that the respondent be responsible for the sale.

5. Mr Docklands obviously failed to comply with the previous order, even on his own admission and accordingly the writ for possession that was previously made will be enforced appropriately.  Mr Docklands, in court today, sought to file a response to an application in a case.  It contains a series of further allegations and material, but the order that is apparently being sought is “to have a complete review and investigation into the biased court action and procedure” - “procedure”, I think, whatever it is.

6. That is not a valid application.  The application is rejected and will not be filed.

7. If Mr Docklands wants to raise a complaint about my professional behaviour, he is free, of course, to address any complaint he wants to the Chief Justice who will investigate accordingly.

8. I will direct that there be a transcript of today’s proceedings.  I note that my involvement has been quite limited.  Mr Docklands has spent most of the time telling me what he thinks about a whole range of things.

9. The restriction on the writ of possession being enforced is lifted and will now be enforced.  I see no reason to change any of the other orders I have made.  The matter is removed from the pending cases list.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice Faulks delivered on 21 July 2011

Associate: 

Date: