DOYLE & RUSEDSKI

[2014] FamCA 940

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DOYLE & RUSEDSKI [2014] FamCA 940

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management – where property proceedings listed to a first day of hearing – where parenting proceedings are in the pool of cases awaiting hearing – where the applicant did not appear – orders made dismissing extant interim applications and for the consolidation of the property and parenting proceedings.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Doyle

RESPONDENT: Ms Rusedski

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4646 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 19 September 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATE: 19 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Swann

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mills Oakley Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Glezer Lanteri & Associates

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The applications for interim orders contained in the amended application filed 8 July 2014 and the response filed 21 July 2014 be dismissed.

2. The husband’s amended application filed 8 July 2014 and the wife’s amended response thereto filed 21 July 2014 for final orders be consolidated with the proceedings for final parenting orders placed in the pool and awaiting hearing by Senior Registrar FitzGibbon by order made 20 August 2014.

3. As soon as practicable, the wife serve a sealed copy of the order made this day upon the husband by pre-paid post addressed to the husband at F Street, Suburb K in the State of Victoria 3182.

4. The wife’s costs of this day be reserved.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Doyle & Rusedski 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 4646 of 2012

Mr Doyle

Applicant

And

Ms Rusedski

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS

1. This matter was listed before me as a first day of hearing on 5 August 2014.  The husband had filed an amended initiating application on 8 July 2014 and the wife an amended response on 21 July 2014 pursuant to orders I had made in Chambers on 29 May 2014 in anticipation of that first day of hearing.

2. It became clear during the course of that hearing that the only property that was properly the subject of any application between the parties for a property settlement appeared to be furniture.  On that basis, I made orders that the parties attend a conciliation conference at 9.15 am on 3 September 2014 and otherwise adjourned the matter for mention before me this day in order to ascertain what should happen with the matter.  The parties did attend that conciliation conference but it would appear, however, that the matter did not resolve.

3. The wife appears today represented by counsel.  The husband has been called but does not appear.  Given the nature of the dispute in relation to the property and the limited property that is the subject of dispute, and the fact that there are parenting proceedings on foot that have been placed in the pool of cases awaiting hearing, I propose to consolidate this application with those parenting proceedings.

4. This does certainly not appear to be a matter that has any particular urgency or a matter in which two hearings would be justified, either from the Court’s point of view, given limited resources, or from the parties’ point of view, in terms of the costs of doing so, even if the property issues are limited.

5. The parties also sought interim orders in their respective application and response.  It is normally the case that matters are not listed for a first day of hearing when there are interim proceedings on foot.  This matter is now awaiting hearing in the pool.  The husband was in Court on the day I listed this matter for mention today and is aware of the hearing and is not present.  In all of the circumstances, I query whether the Court could make the interim orders he seeks in any event, but given that he is not here to pursue that application, I propose to dismiss the interim applications. The wife similarly does not pursue the interim orders sought in her application which mirror the final orders. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Macmillan delivered on 19 September 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  31 October 2014