Goudarzi and Bagheri (No 4)

[2016] FamCA 1095

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOUDARZI & BAGHERI (NO 4) [2016] FamCA 1095

FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Application for provision of documents – Where the particular documents sought are unlikely to have direct bearing on the issue requiring determination – Ordered Application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Contravention application – Where the application has been made and refused in the past – Where the issue of disclosure or concealment can be pursued in cross-examination – Ordered application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Application for contempt – Where it is alleged the respondent interfered with a witness and evaded service of Court documents – Where the entirety of evidence was objected to – Where the evidence does not support the application – Ordered application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Application for restraints – Where several parcels of real estate are identified by the parties – Where there is a settled position for the parties to retain identified properties – Where the central dispute pertains to the family home and whether it should be retained by the applicant or sold – Concluded there is no need for restraining orders – Ordered application dismissed

APPLICANT: Ms Goudarzi

RESPONDENT: Mr Bagheri

FILE NUMBER: (P)SYC 7646 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 20 July 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 20 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Not Applicable

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Cummings SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Barkus Doolan

Orders

1. The Application in a Case filed 2 July 2015 is dismissed.

2. The Contravention Application filed 3 July 2015 (dated 2 July 2015) is dismissed.

3. The Application for Contempt filed 14 July 2015 is dismissed.

4. The Application in a Case for Perjury filed 17 July 2015 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Goudarzi & Bagheri (No 4) is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

FILE NUMBER: SYC7646 of 2008

Ms Goudarzi

Applicant

And

Mr Bagheri

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

APPLICATIONS

Application in a Case filed by the Applicant wife on 3 July 2015  

1. In relation to an Application in a Case filed by the wife on 3 July 2015, although date-stamped 2 July 2015, the wife seeks Orders 1 to 6 as set out on page 9 of that application.

2. Having heard from both parties, I accept the submission that the orders sought about the provision by the respondent of particular documents has probably no direct bearing on the issues which I am required to determine.

3. That issue is whether or not there should be an adjustment of interests in property as between these two parties. It does not extend to the difficulties, which I have no basis for thinking that the applicant does not have, in divorcing her former husband in Country U, but which are not within the compass of these proceedings.

4. To the extent that the documents referred to have a bearing on these proceedings, then I accept the submission that those issues can be agitated through knowledge of the applicant which has been revealed in more than one application of this kind.

5. Accordingly, I dismiss this application.

Application for Contravention filed by the Applicant wife on 3 July 2015

1. There is an application before the Court by the applicant for the respondent to be dealt with for contravention of orders. The application is said to be filed on 2 July, but was probably filed on 3 July, despite the date stamp.

2. The statement of the alleged contravention is as follows:

   Documents and information were not provided to date. Please see attached statement and affidavit.

3. In a document titled Part B Affidavit, the applicant sets out some material in support of her application for the contravention. Commencing on page 9, the applicant sets out the orders that she seeks with particularity in relation to the respondent being fined and repeating a request made in earlier applications for the court to direct the respondent to give written authority to the applicant and/or her legal representatives in Country U to conduct investigations.

4. In respect of the orders sought about the Court directing the respondent to give an authority for inquiries in Country U, that application has been made and refused in the past, but dealing with it now, the matter has been set down for hearing at least twice, if not three times, on the basis of the information that each of the parties files and, of course, each is entitled to cross-examine and, in the event that there is a further application to be made on the basis of cross-examination, it can be made then.

5. But the application for contravention in respect of disclosure is not made out on its own terms. That is not to say, as I have just said, that the issues of disclosure and concealment, which is a real one, can be pursued in cross-examination by the applicant.

6. I will dismiss that application.

Application for Contempt filed by the Applicant wife on 14 July 2015

1. There is an Application for Contempt by the applicant. That is, for the respondent to be dealt with for contempt of the Court. It was filed on 14 July 2015 and refers to the respondent being dealt with for interfering with a witness and evading service of Court documents.

2. The entirety of the affidavits relied on in support by the applicant filed 14 July 2015 and by the party’s brother-in-law, Mr JJ, filed 17 July 2015 is objected to.

3. The applicant has referred to the respondent avoiding service to the extent that the material is relevant.  The Respondent was not served personally. That is all that can be said about it.

4. This is a most serious application for the more serious types of contempt.

5. There is no evidence that supports the respondent being dealt with in that way and there is no evidence that supports a witness having been interfered with to the extent that the material about unhappiness in the family is apparently relied on.

6. Accordingly, I dismiss the Application for Contempt.

Application in a Case filed by the Applicant wife on 17 July 2015

1. There is an Application in a Case filed on 17 July 2015 supported by an affidavit of the applicant, probably filed on the same day, although the date stamp is unreadable. The orders sought are contained in that affidavit in paragraph 56 and, again, in paragraph 58.

2. I accept the submission on behalf of Senior Counsel that there is no established basis for referring the respondent or his legal advisers to the Attorney-General at all and in respect of paragraph 58, final orders have been made for the two children of the parties in 2013.

3. In respect of restraining orders in relation to property which the Court is capable of making, I confirm what was discussed with Senior Counsel, that there are several parcels of real estate in this case and the settled position of the parties is that each retain certain identified properties, identified in their respective applications and that the central dispute is whether or not the family home in which the applicant and the children are living should be retained by her or sold with the net proceeds divided in a particular way.

4. In those circumstances, and without any other evidence that would justify such restraining orders, there is no need for the Court to do it and so, therefore, should not.

5. I dismiss the application in a case filed 17 July 2015.

I certify that the preceding twenty-two (22) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 20 July 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  20 December 2016