Gorman and Gorman

[2017] FCCA 3187

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GORMAN & GORMAN [2017] FCCA 3187

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure – failure to file material in accordance with orders – leave sought to rely on evidence filed after hearing commenced – leave not granted.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.42, 43

Federal Circuit Court Rules, rr.4.05, 10.01, 15.01
Evidence Act1995 (Cth), s.138
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s.7

Cases cited:

Tate & Tate [2000] FamCA 1040
Valiyav & Steiner [2015] FCCA 1816

Applicant: MS GORMAN

Respondent: MR GORMAN

File Number: PAC 2009 of 2010

Judgment of: Judge Obradovic

Hearing date: 22 November 2017

Date of Last Submission: 22 November 2017

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 18 December 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Byrne

Solicitors for the Applicant: Thurlows Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Campton SC

Solicitors for the Respondent: York Law Family Law Specialists

ORDERS

1. Leave is granted to the wife to make an oral application for leave to rely on further evidence.

2. Leave is granted to the wife to file evidence in Court in support of the application for leave to rely on further evidence.

3. Application for leave to rely on further evidence is dismissed, namely:

   (a)The leave sought with respect to the Affidavit of Ms Gorman filed 14 November 2017, the Affidavit of Hibah Hazim filed 21 November 2017 and the Affidavit of Ms Gorman filed 21 November 2017 is denied.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 2009 of 2010

MS GORMAN

Applicant

And

MR GORMAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On the second day of hearing of this matter, the wife sought leave to rely on evidence filed without leave and not in compliance with orders of the Court.

2. Such leave was not granted and the hearing continued.

3. Counsel for the wife sought reasons in respect of the dismissal of that application. The Court indicated that the reasons would be delivered at a later date. These are the reasons as to why the leave to rely on such further evidence was not granted.

Relevant Matters

1. On 26 August 2015 the wife filed an Initiating Application seeking, inter alia, a final order:

   1.  That all assets be realised and split: 55% to the Applicant and 45% to the Respondent.

2. Presumably such an order is sought pursuant to s79 Family Law Act1975 (Cth).

3. The wife’s Initiating Application also sought the following interim orders:

   1. That the Applicant be granted leave pursuant to Section 44(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 to institute proceedings with respect to property of the parties under s.79 of the Family Law Act 1975.

   2. That until further order the Respondent and his servants and agents are restrained from transferring, encumbering, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with his interest in the property known as Property A being lot (omitted)…