Egbert and Egbert

[2016] FamCA 196

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EGBERT & EGBERT [2016] FamCA 196

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – application premature.
FAMILY LAW – COSTS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Mullen v De Bry [2006] FamCA 1380; (2006) FLC 93-293; (2007) 36 Fam LR 154

APPLICANT: Mr Egbert

RESPONDENT: Ms Egbert

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2964 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 2 March 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 2 March 2016

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Sala

Orders

1. That paragraph 9 of the response of the wife filed 26 February 2016 is adjourned to the Judicial Duty List at 10.00am on 6 April 2016.

2. That the application in a case filed by the husband on 19 January 2016 is dismissed.

3. That paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the wife’s response filed 26 February 2016 are dismissed.

4. That the wife file and serve any further affidavit upon which she intends to rely in respect of paragraph 9 of the said response by no later than 4.00pm on 18 March 2016.

5. That the husband file and serve any affidavit material upon which he intends to rely together with a formal reply (if he is so advised) by 4.00pm on 1 April 2016.

6. That the husband pay the wife’s costs of this day fixed in the sum of $1100 such costs to be offset against the wife’s obligation to the husband on the paragraph 1 of the orders made on 19 January 2010.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Egbert & Egbert (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 2964 of 2008

Mr Egbert

Applicant

And

Ms Egbert

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By an application in the case filed 19 January 2016, Mr Egbert seeks a variety of orders.

2. For reasons that remain somewhat obscure, that application was not served until almost a month later.  Mr Egbert tells me that the rules provide that the document has to be served some 14 days prior to the hearing date, and whilst that may be his interpretation, the reality is that the more time a litigant has to contemplate the evidence upon which the application is based, the more likely it is that a proper response can be prepared.

3. The orders sought relate to, effectively, an enforcement of orders against Ms Egbert, to whom I shall refer in these reasons as “the wife”, and I do not use that term of either party with any disrespect.  It is simply for my convenience.  Mr Egbert refers to her as the “payer”.

4. The orders that Mr Egbert seeks are as follows:

   (1)That the total amount owing under the orders made by his Honour Cronin J on 19 January 2010 be paid in full by the payer;

   (2)That the obligation…