Gingham and Gingham (No 3)

[2011] FamCA 1089

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GINGHAM & GINGHAM (NO 3) [2011] FamCA 1089

FAMILY LAW – Matter adjourned

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Gingham

RESPONDENT: Ms Gingham

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Christine Vachon

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2720 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 17 February 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J

HEARING DATE: 17 February 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Hamwood

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Crowley Greenhalgh

THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Brasch

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Christine Vachon Solicitor

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The trial is adjourned before Justice Murphy to:

   a.Tuesday, 12 April 2011 between 2:30pm and 6:30pm to receive the balance of the evidence; and

   b.Thursday, 14 April 2011 between 2:00pm and 6:00pm for addresses.

2. Leave is granted to all parties to inspect and copy any transcripts that are on the file in so far as such transcripts are in evidence before Justice Murphy.

NOTATION

1. The Applicant father is formally excused from attending on Thursday, 14 April 2011.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Gingham & Gingham has approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2720 of 2010

Mr Gingham

Applicant

And

Ms Gingham

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The reasons for applying the principles which bind me in the conduct of child related proceedings insofar as they apply to restricting the mother to the timeframes which I have indicated are already evident. 

2. Added to those should be mentioned the fact that, since the matter resumed after the lunch adjournment from about 3.00 pm onwards, there have been very, very few questions asked by the mother, and I don’t say this in any sense as a criticism, that have struck me as being of particular significance or assistance in arriving at a decision about X’s best interests.  That is, particularly so given the earlier intimations that I had given the mother about what I perceive to be the central issues in this case and which such issues were, it seems to me, reinforced strongly by evidence given by Dr V this morning.

3. Accordingly, even though I would in any event be persuaded that my statutory obligations and the other matters referred to require me in X’s best interests to desperately attempt to bring these proceedings to an end and as a result, curtail the cross-examination of Mr Gingham by Mrs Gingham, I am persuaded that that is an appropriate course of action by reference to the matter that I have just identified. 

4. The matter will now stand adjourned until 2.30 pm on 12 April 201l.

5. I say again, I know I am repeating myself endlessly Ms Gingham, but I am going to say it yet again so that you are under no illusions whatsoever.  The balance of the evidence in this matter will commence at 2.30 pm on 12 April.  It will cease not later than 6.30 pm on that date.  It will cease at that time on that date, irrespective of whether you say to me that there are other questions that you need to ask, unless you present to me an absolutely compelling case that there is a real necessity for you to ask particular questions on particular topics that are directly central to issues that I need to determine in X’s best interests. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy delivered on 17 February 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  21 August 2012