Finch and Shibo (No 3)

[2015] FamCA 1059

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FINCH & SHIBO (NO 3) [2015] FamCA 1059

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applications in a Case dismissed for want of prosecution – Non-appearance by applicant

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Finch

RESPONDENT: Ms Shibo

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Bruce Scott

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2788 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 16 November 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 16 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: Appearance not required

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Scott

Parker Family Law

Orders

1. The applicant’s Application in a Case filed 4 September 2015 and Application in a Case filed 9 October 2015 are dismissed for want of prosecution.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Finch & Shibo (No 3) 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2788 of 2009

Mr Finch

Applicant

And

Ms Shibo

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Many of the reasons for why I am going to order as I am,  I have already now clarified in the exchange with the Independent Children’s Lawyer and put on the record, but in circumstances of:

   (a)there being no appearance by Mr Finch;

   (b)Mr Finch having been given leave to have two Applications in a Case listed for consideration today, that is, consideration as to whether they should be formally filed and then served on the respondent, Ms Shibo, with one of those Applications in a Case being filed in the first instance for the purposes of consideration on 4 September 2015 and one of them being filed for the purposes of consideration on 9 October 2015;

   (c)where Mr Finch has twice, at least, in the lead up to today sought permission to attend this morning by telephone and twice been refused that permission, and advised that his personal attendance here today was required for these matters to be dealt with;

   (d)where my Court Officer has called Mr Finch’s name loudly and clearly three times outside the Court this morning and I have now given him at least forty minutes to appear; and

   (e)having heard also from the Independent Children's Lawyer who made submissions, which I accept, as to other reasons why Mr Finch’s applications should be dismissed;

   I will dismiss both of those applications.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph is a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 16 November 2015.

Associate:

Date:  1 December 2015