DOCKLANDS & MARSHMAN

[2011] FamCA 184

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DOCKLANDS & MARSHMAN [2011] FamCA 184

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION – Contravention – Summarily dismissed

APPLICANT: Mr Docklands

RESPONDENT: Ms Marshman

FILE NUMBER: CAC 398 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 24 February 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Faulks DCJ

HEARING DATE: 24 February 2011 – Considered on the papers in Chambers

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant – Matter considered on the papers in Chambers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent – Matter considered on the papers in Chambers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application of Mr Docklands is filed in Court on 24 February 2011.  

2. The Application is summarily dismissed.

3. The matter is removed from the Pending Cases Inventory.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Docklands & Marshman is approved 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 Marshman

Respondent

EX-TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In the matter of Docklands & Marshman I have had handed to me, as purporting to be handed into the Registry, an application that Ms Marshman be dealt with for contravention of an order made apparently by me. 

2. The document itself appears to have been completed by Mr Docklands who has appended to the name of the respondent, in brackets the words “(child abuser, money-hungry liar)”. 

3. The particulars of the alleged contravention I will turn to in a moment.

4. However, so far as details about the former Independent Children’s Lawyer are concerned in Part C of the application the words as follows have been printed onto the form:

   “She pulled the pin and ran away from her own business to side with [Ms O]”.

5. I have no idea what that means and really it is irrelevant for these purposes. 

6. The contravention is stated to be in paragraph 6 of the Application which is directed to identifying which of the orders it is asserted might have been contravened as follows:

   “It only has one thing in it, the bit where all I wanted was to get [the child’s] school results and photo”.

7. That is not a particular reference to any part of the orders although it refers to an obligation imposed on the respondent in the orders, I imagine, to provide some of the things referred to. 

8. In paragraph 7, the assertion which is made as to constitute the alleged breach is as follows:

   “SHE WON’T SUPPLY THE PHOTO OR SCHOOL RESULTS”.

   “She was to do for Christ sake”.

9. There is a reference then in further different coloured ink to “Faulks’ order dated 16 August 2010 paragraph number 5”.  The document is signed.  Under the heading The Application was Prepared by, a cross through the word “Applicant” as follows:

   “[Mr Docklands], the father.  The system fucked up completely and stole my son away.  You all know me, the monster, not”.

10. In support of that application is what purports to be an affidavit which is commendably brief in that it contained but two words in the deposition which, in turn, is not sworn.  Those words are:

    “Won’t comply”.

11. There is nothing in this document which would enable me properly to deal with it as an application before the court. 

12. The Application is filed in Court and I deal with it on the basis that it is dismissed summarily as failing to disclose any proper cause of action.  Accordingly, it is removed from the pending cases list having been filed in accordance with my direction. 

13. There is no reason why the respondent should be obliged to be served with this document.  No contravention is determined on the papers.

14. The application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice Faulks delivered on 24 February 2011.

Senior Legal Associate:

Date: 18 March 2011