Grant and Aiden (No 2)

[2016] FamCA 198

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRANT & AIDEN (NO 2) [2016] FamCA 198

FAMILY LAW – Procedural orders.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Grant

RESPONDENT: Ms Aiden

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5094 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 26 February 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 26 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. That the contravention application filed 22 February 2016 is adjourned part-heard to 10.00am on 18 March 2016.

2. That the hearing listed for 2 March 2016 is vacated.

3. That all extant applications listed that day are adjourned to 18 March 2016 before the Honourable Justice Cronin for future mention.

4. That the contravention application filed 24 December 2015 is struck out.

5. That the mother have leave to issue a subpoena to Telstra to produce the records of the father’s mobile telephone number returnable at 10.00am on 18 March 2016.

6. That the mother have leave to issue a subpoena to Mr P, psychologist, to give evidence on 18 March 2016 at 10.00am.

7. That the father have leave to file a further application (with proposed interim orders) but without the necessity of filing a further affidavit by 4.00pm on 4 March 2016.

8. That the mother have leave to file a response to the father’s proposed initiating application including any position in relation to interim orders by no later than 4.00pm on 11 March 2016.

9. That the father file and serve any documents upon the mother by email at her address:…

10. That the mother file a Notice of Address for Service forthwith.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Grant & Aiden 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 5094  of 2008

Mr Grant

Applicant

And

Ms Aiden

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the respondent to a contravention application, the amended form of which was filed on 22 February 2016.  The original application for contravention was filed on 24 December 2015, and in between those two applications, there was a hearing before me, at which I queried the need to have so many allegations.  The respondent, who is unrepresented again today, has indicated there are three grounds for her adjournment application.  The first is that the amendment document was only given to her some four days ago and she thinks that she needs more than seven.  The second ground is that the format has not indeed reduced the size of the allegations.  And the third is that there are new annexures.  Each of those grounds should be rejected here. 

2. The first reason for the rejection is that the amendment indeed has only one new count.  The amended document repeats the same allegations, but for one, as were made in 24 December document.  The second is that the format has not reduced the number of allegations.  There is no substance to that either, having regard to the fact that the only change appears to be in relation to one allegation and also some further evidence which would certainly not be taking the respondent by surprise, because it seems to me it had nothing to do with anything other than the one allegation about which I have some concerns. 

3. The third ground is that the new annexures are indeed new evidence, but as I said, they only relate really to the first of the grounds which have something to do with something that happened at the Melbourne Children’s Court on 20 November 2015.  What is going on in the Children’s Court is well known to both parties and does not affect what I am doing here.  It seems to me that the adjournment application must fail, having regard to the fact that the matter was adjourned on the last occasion specifically for the purposes of its determination today.  The application is refused. 

4. The contravention application filed on 24 December 2015 is struck out.  The contravention application filed on 22 February 2016 is adjourned part heard to 10 o’clock on 18 March 2016.  The mother is to have leave to issue a subpoena to Telstra to produce the records of the father’s mobile telephone, and that subpoena is to be returnable at 10 o’clock on 18 March 2016.  The mother is to have leave to issue a subpoena to Mr P psychologist to give evidence on 18 March 2016. 

5. The hearing before the registrar on 2 March 2016 is vacated and all outstanding applications are adjourned to 18 March 2016, before me for further mention.  I will give the father leave to file a further application with proposed interim orders, but without the necessity of filing any further affidavit.  That is to be filed by 4 pm on 4 March.  I give the mother leave to file a response to that application by 4 o’clock on 11 March.  The father is to file and serve any document to the mother by email address at … and the mother is to file and serve a notice of address to service forthwith.  

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 26 February 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  31 March 2016