Greene and Greene
[2011] FMCAfam 13
•11 January 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GREENE & GREENE | [2011] FMCAfam 13 |
| FAMILY LAW – Injunction – exclusive occupation of matrimonial home – application for interim orders – where family violence order already in force – where parties live in separate residences on the same land. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC, 64B, 79, 114 |
| Mullane v Mullane (1983) FLC 91-303; 8 Fam LR 777 In the Marriage of Davis and Davis (1976) FLC 90-062; 1 Fam LR 11522 |
| Applicant: | MS GREENE |
| Respondent: | MR GREENE |
| File Number: | SYC6651/2010 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 21 December 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 21 December 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 11 January 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr McPherson |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Watts McCray |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Livingston |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Etheringtons Solicitors |
ORDERS
The application for interim orders filed by the applicant on 21 October 2010 is dismissed.
Until Further Order the applicant wife is to reside in the former matrimonial home on the land known as Property B in the State of New South Wales to the exclusion of the respondent husband and the respondent husband is to reside in the nearby cottage on the land known as Property B in the State of New South Wales to the exclusion of the applicant wife.
Until Further Order the parties are restrained from approaching one another except for the purpose of communicating about matters directly relevant to the welfare of the children of the marriage.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Greene & Greene is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC6651/2010
| MS GREENE |
Applicant
And
| MR GREENE |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application by the wife for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home and exclusive use of a motor vehicle. The husband seeks an order that the application be dismissed.
Orders Sought
The wife seeks the following orders (summarised):
a)
Exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home at
Property B, New South Wales;
b)That the husband pay all mortgage payments, rates and utility fees;
c)That the husband ensure that the Property B property is insured for building and home contents insurance;
d)That the wife be entitled to exclusive use of the parties’ Toyota Prado motor vehicle;
e)That the husband maintain a petrol account for the Toyota Prado; and
f)That the husband pay the wife’s costs.
The orders that the husband seeks in his Amended Response filed on 20th December 2010 are:
a)That the applicant’s application for exclusive occupation of Property B be dismissed;
b)That the applicant reside in the Property B property to the exclusion of the respondent and that the respondent reside in the cottage on the Property B property to the exclusion of the applicant;
c)That the parties are restrained from approaching one another with the exception of approaching for the purposes of communicating matters relevant to the welfare of the children of the marriage; and
d)That the applicant should pay the respondent’s costs of the interim proceedings.
Areas of Agreement and Issues in Dispute
There is no agreement between the parties, except that they separated on 6th July 2010. The children live with the mother and neither party seeks orders varying that arrangement.
The issue in dispute is whether the wife should have exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home and exclusive use of the Toyota motor vehicle, with the husband paying the outgoings.
Background
The parties commenced to live together in 1990. They were married [in] 1992.
The wife was born [in] 1969. The husband was born [in] 1963.
There are three children of the marriage.
[X] was born [in] 1993.
[Y] was born [in] 1994.
[Z] was born [in] 2006.
There was an incident between the parties in the home in the evening of 24th June 2010. The wife deposes in her affidavit that the husband screamed at her and she slapped him. The husband placed his hand around her throat, pushed her backwards and punched her on the jaw.[1]
[1] Affidavit of Ms Greene 20.10.2010 at paragraph [14]
The wife contacted the Police. On 6th July 2010 the Local Court of New South Wales at [H] made an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order against the husband, naming the wife and the three children as Protected Persons. The order is in force for a period of 12 months.
In addition to the standard orders, there is an order that says:
10. The defendant must not approach the protected person(s) or any such premises or place at which the protected person(s) from time to time reside or work within 12 hours of consuming liquor or illicit drugs.
A copy of the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order is annexed to the wife’s affidavit.
The husband moved out of the home and into a cottage which is also situated on the property.
On 12th October 2010 the wife went to the cottage to use the laundry. An altercation took place between her and the husband, during which a window cracked and a piece of glass fell inside the cottage. The Police later arrived at the house.
An application was made for an Apprehended Violence Order against the wife, naming the husband as the protected person. On 1st November 2010 the Local Court at [H] dismissed the application.
On 21st October 2010 the wife commenced these proceedings by filing an application for final property orders in accordance with s.79 of the Family Law Act 1975 and the interim orders for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home and exclusive use of the motor vehicle that are the matters currently under consideration.
No parenting orders are sought by the wife.
The husband filed a response on 30th November 2010 seeking final property orders and dismissal of the interim application with costs. No parenting orders are sought in the response.
The application was returnable on 13th December 2010. On that date both parties were represented by counsel. The applicant sought an interim hearing in respect of the application for exclusive occupation. The application was listed for interim hearing on 21st December 2010.
On 20th December 2010 the respondent filed an amended response. The amended orders sought related to the application for exclusive occupation, being orders that that the parties reside in the houses in which they currently reside to the exclusion of the other and that they are restrained from approaching one another except for the purposes of communicating about the welfare of the children. Again, no parenting orders are sought.[2]
[2] The eldest child, [X], attains the age of 18 on [date omitted] 2011.
Evidence
The wife relied on her affidavits sworn on:
a)20th October 2010; and
b)20th December 2010.
During the course of submissions, her counsel, Mr Macpherson, tendered without objection an aerial photograph of the property at Property B, showing the former matrimonial home and the nearby cottage.
Mr Macpherson also tendered a written outline of submissions which contained a concise and very helpful summary of the applicable law.
The husband relied on these affidavits:
a)His affidavit affirmed 27th November 2010;
b)His affidavit affirmed 17th December 2010;
c)The affidavit of his mother Ms G affirmed 27 November 2010; and
d)The affidavit of Ms G affirmed 17th December 2010.
It is the wife’s evidence that:
a)The parties used to reside at [omitted], New South Wales, with the husband’s family and the husband’s mother now resides there by herself;[3]
[3] Affidavit of Ms Greene 20.10.2010 at paragraph [8]
b)The parties purchased the property at Property B, in 1999, where there is the former matrimonial home, some sheds, and the cottage, which is a few metres from the former matrimonial home;[4]
[4] Ibid at [9]
c)The husband regularly took marijuana and consumed alcohol on a daily basis;[5]
[5] Ibid at [10]
d)From about the time when the parties’ youngest child, [Z], was aged 18 months[6] the husband commenced sleeping in the cottage on a regular basis;[7]
[6] The child was born [in] 2006
[7] Affidavit of Ms Greene 20.10.2010 at [13]
e)In the altercation on 24th June 2010 the husband spoke to her in angry and intimidating way, pressed his hand around her throat, pushed her backwards and punched her on the jaw;[8]
[8] Ibid at [14]
f)After the incident on 24th June the husband stopped coming to the home for meals and she stopped doing his washing for him;[9]
[9] Ibid at [15]
g)The husband often made denigrating and intimidating comments to her in the presence of the children;[10]
[10] Ibid at [16]
h)The cottage is only a few metres from the house and the parties still come into contact with each other, especially as the wife needs to use the laundry which is located inside the cottage;[11]
i)She is finding it extremely stressful to live within the same premises as the husband, and it is having e negative effect on the children;[12]
j)She is no longer able to use a fuel card to put petrol in the car as the husband has discontinued her use of it;[13]
k)The parties had an altercation on 3rd August 2010 which resulted in the husband reporting the matter to the police;[14]
l)The wife has commenced seeing a clinical psychologist, Ms E on a fortnightly basis, to assist her in coping with the separation and “the stress of living under the same roof as Mr Greene”;[15]
m)The parties’ solicitors wrote letters to each other;[16]
n)There were further altercations between the parties on 11th and 12th October 2010;[17]
o)Her solicitors wrote to the husband’s solicitors but did not receive a reply;[18]
p)The husband’s mother lives by herself in a 5 bedroom home at [omitted] where there is sufficient space for the husband to store his trucks and excavator for his business;[19] and
q)She needs to use the Toyota Prado to transport the children.[20]
[11] Ibid at [17]
[12] Ibid at [18]
[13] Ibid at [19]
[14] Ibid at [19]-[21]
[15] Ibid at [22]
[16] Ibid at [22]-[25]
[17] Ibid at [26]-[30]
[18] Ibid at [31]
[19] Ibid at [32]
[20] Ibid [39]
In her later affidavit sworn on 10th December 2010 and electronically filed the same day, the wife annexed a copy of a letter from Ms E, Clinical Psychologist, dated 6/12/10, stating that the wife was referred by her local doctor. The letter largely repeats the wife’s account of her dispute with the husband but goes on to say in the final paragraph:
I have concerns that the parents are struggling and unable to separate their distress with each other from the needs of the children. The children are witnessing frequent struggles between the parents. There appears to be a sense of ‘taking sides’ now and for the future. This does not appear to be a healthy environment for any of the parties and increased separation of the parents could be helpful. Ms Greene’s husband is paying the mortgage and other essential bills but does not give Ms Greene other monies. They are both relying on Ms Greene collecting Social Services payments. Thus, it would seem sensible for her husband to move off the property for the time being to facilitate a calmer environment.
The wife deposes that:
a)She holds great concern for the wellbeing of the children, who are exposed to the conflict between their parents;[21]
[21] Affidavit of Ms Greene 10.12.2010 at paragraph [4]
b)The children [Z] and [X] have made comments that show that the husband has spoken to them about the proceedings between the parents;[22]
c)The application by the police for an Apprehended Violence Order against her was dismissed by the Magistrate at the [H] Local Court on 1st November 2010;[23]
d)
The eldest child [X] threatened to harm herself on or about
9th November 2010 and was taken by the Police to [H] Hospital, were she was counselled and allowed to leave;[24]
e)The parties had an argument in the presence of all three children on or about 6th December 2010, during which time [X] appeared to be very upset;[25]
f)The wife believes that continuing to reside within the same premises as the husband will cause ongoing psychological harm to the children and it has caused distress to her, to the extent that she has lost seven kilograms in weight and has had difficulty sleeping;[26] and
g)The husband has purchased a new Toyota motor vehicle.[27]
[22] Ibid at [6]-[7]
[23] Ibid at [7]
[24] Ibid at [8]-[9]
[25] Ibid at [10]
[26] Ibid at [11]-[12]
[27] Ibid at [13]
The husband’s evidence is that the relationship with the wife began deteriorating in 2007 when, in April of that year, the wife said to him:
“Here are your clothes and you’re moving into the cottage. You live there now”.[28]
[28] Affidavit of Mr Greene 27.11.2010 at paragraph [16]
The husband deposes that:
a)The laundry in the cottage has since October 2010 been relocated so that it is now on the exterior of the cottage between the cottage and the residence;[29]
[29] Ibid
b)He denies the circumstances of the incident on 24th June 2010;[30]
[30] Ibid at [18]
c)He consented to the Apprehended Violence Order on 6th July because the conflict between the parties was causing the children stress;[31]
[31] Ibid at [19]-[20]
d)He does not believe that the wife has a genuine fear of him because she approaches him and converses with him, although he tries to minimise contact with her;[32]
[32] Ibid at [21]-[23]
e)The wife has sent 63 text messages to him between 21st July and 18th November 2010, copies of which are annexed to his affidavit;[33]
f)The children are heavily dependent on both the wife and himself for their transport;[34]
g)The wife said to him in September 2010 words to the effect of “I’ll be living here for the next five years and you’ll be booted off soon and you’ll be paying for it and I’ll be taking holidays”;[35]
h)He uses the property to store equipment for his [omitted] business;[36] and
i)He opposes the wife’s application for excluding him from the property because:
i)It would distress the children, with whom he has a strong relationship;
ii)The isolation of the property would be deleterious to the children because it would make it harder for him to commit time to their transport needs;
iii)He could not live at his mother’s property because he could not get his machinery onto the property; and
iv)To operate his business effectively he needs immediate access to all his machinery.[37]
[33] Ibid at [28], Annexure “C”
[34] Ibid at [29]-[32]
[35] Ibid at [35]
[36] Ibid at [38]-39]
[37] Ibid at [42]
The husband deposes that he believes the wife is seeking to have him excluded from the property for her own convenience and not because of any genuine fear. He points to the contents of the SMS messages from the wife to show that she is not fearful of him. He is prepared to undertake not to access the residence which he had not done for at least ten weeks.[38]
[38] Ibid at [43]
The husband’s affidavit of 17th December 2010 describes an incident on 8th December where the wife went to enter the cottage and said to him You touch me…and that is a breach of the AVO…I will be calling the cops” and later “You are out of here soon…I am going to win…I can’t wait till Monday…I am going to sell your shit slowly…”.[39]
[39] Affidavit of Mr Greene 17.12.2010 at [3]
The affidavit of the husband’s mother of 27th November 2010 gives her reasons as to why she does not want the husband to live at her home in [omitted].
Her later affidavit of 17th December 2010 annexes an invitation card with a picture of gangsters on it and the printed words:
Bring: Your bikie friends, guns, knives, knuckle dusters and lieing[40] relations.
Any Hour, any Day, Month or Year
Open All Hours – Day Or Night
[address omitted]
Why: To gun down the mother of my 3 grandkids and to help my son & I to get rid of her.
[40] sic
Ms G and Mr Greene and the Mafia Mob
I note that counsel for the wife said that his client denied sending the card.
Submissions
Counsel for the applicant mother submitted that:
a)The matter has been ongoing since August and the respondent father is incorrect in saying that it is not a problem;
b)It is not reasonable for the parties to remain living in the home because they are not remote from one another, both parties are now attending psychologists to deal with the stress and the parties’ daughter [X] has been so affected as to attempt to harm herself with scissors;
c)The wife cannot vacate because she does not have the capacity to relocate and the husband does not need to have regular access to all his machinery, much of which is unserviceable; and
d)The husband has access to other accommodation.
Mr Livingston, for the respondent husband, submitted that the cause of the problem is of the applicant’s own making, and if she were to moderate her own behaviour there would not be the need for the parties to attend counselling. He drew the Court’s attention to the text messages sent by the wife. He further noted that the magistrate who made the Apprehended Violence Order against the husband did not make an order for exclusive occupation.
In reply, Mr Macpherson told the Court that the timings on the text messages are not accurate. It was not denied that the wife had used the words in the text messages.
The Applicable law
It is well established that an order for exclusive occupation of a property is a property order under s.79 of the Family Law Act. The High Court held in Mullane v Mullane[41] that:
…sec. 79 does not authorise a mere modification of a liberty to enjoy property. An order which merely excludes one spouse from the enjoyment of property, albeit for many years, in order to permit its better enjoyment by the other does not alter an interest in that property, though a spouse acquiring an interest in property under a sec. 79 order may be entitled, by virtue of that interest, to exclude the other from its enjoyment.[42]
[41] (1983) FLC 91-303; 8 Fam LR 777
[42] Per Mason ACJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ at 78072
The power to make an order excluding a party from the matrimonial home is to be found in paragraphs 114(1)(b) and (f) of the Family Law Act:
In proceedings of the kind referred to in paragraph (e) of the definition of :matrimonial cause” in subsection 4(1), the court may make such order or grant such injunction as it considers proper with respect to the matter to which the proceedings relate, including:
…(b) an injunction restraining a party to the marriage from entering or remaining in the matrimonial home or the premises in which the other party to the marriage resides, or restraining a party to the marriage from entering or remaining in a specified area, being an area in which the matrimonial is, or the premises in which the other party to the marriage resides are, situated;…
(f) an injunction relating to the use or occupancy of the matrimonial home.
It is also well established that the criteria for the exercise of the Court’s power under s.114(1) are simply that the Court may make such order as it thinks proper:
The matters which should be considered include the means and needs of the parties, the needs of the children, hardship to either party or to the children and, where relevant, conduct of one party which may justify the other party in leaving the home in asking for the expulsion from the home of the first party.[43]
[43] In the marriage of Davis and Davis (1976) FLC 90-062; 1 Fam LR 11522 per Evatt CJ, Pawley and Ellis JJ
Counsel for the respondent agreed with the formulation of the law set out by counsel for the applicant in the Case Outline Document. In my view, with respect, counsel for the applicant has succinctly summarised the applicable law and, with minor modifications, it is set out in the following ten paragraphs.
An application for an exclusive occupation order involves two questions:
i)Should the property be occupied by one party?
ii)Which party should leave?
The onus of establishing a case for exclusive occupation will rest on the party seeking the exclusion order. The test is that it must be proper to make an exclusive occupation order. In determining what is proper the Court needs to determine whether or not it is reasonable or sensible or practical to expect the parties to remain in the home together.
The test is an objective one. Each case is determined on its own merits and having to its own facts. The court ought not, however, order that a party be removed from a property unless it is of the opinion that such a course is necessary rather than merely convenient. An exclusive occupation order should be granted only for good reasons and should not be made lightly. It should exist on more substantial grounds rather than mere balance of convenience.
An exclusive occupation order should not depend merely on balance of convenience or hardship. However, balance of convenience may properly decide the matter where there is intense disharmony between the parties to a marriage or where each would have an equally good case for excluding the other.
The Court will have regard to the following guidelines when deciding whether an exclusive occupation order should be made:
Means and needs of the parties
This includes consideration of:
·the income and financial resources of the parties
·presence and availability of accommodation
·the degree to which the home is an essential part of any business owned or run by a party.
The Needs of Children
Although not conclusive, the predominant consideration has usually been that the party who has the care and control of the children should continue to live in the matrimonial home.
Hardship to Either Party or to the Children of the Marriage
The Court will consider the position of both parties and the alternatives which face them if an order for expulsion is or is not made. The Court must balance the hardship to each party in granting or refusing an order.
Conduct of Parties
Conduct is not an essential consideration. It is only one matter to be taken into account. Conduct which is only annoying behaviour is insufficient to cause expulsion. Similarly, it is not sufficient too exclude one spouse from the former matrimonial home simply to allow the other spouse to live more peacefully in the other’s absence.
Physical Assault
Putting a party in fear of his or her life would be sufficient for expulsion. The cause of the problem leading to a spouse to seek an exclusive occupation order should not be of the applicant’s own making.
Counsel for the applicant also set out a number of factors to be considered pursuant to section 60CC of the Act. Whilst I have considered the subject matter, I am not, with respect, persuaded that section 60CC is directly relevant. Although the children live in the same house as the applicant wife, neither party is seeking a parenting order. An injunctive order under s.114 is not a parenting order as defined by s.64B of the Act.
Conclusions
The wife is seeking orders for:
a)Exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home;
b)That the husband pay for statutory outgoings, insurances and mortgage payments relating to the former matrimonial home; and
c)Exclusive use of the Toyota Prado motor vehicle and related running expenses.
The application for exclusive occupation of the home is clearly an injunctive order under s.114(1).
It is questionable, however, whether the proposed order that the husband pay the outgoings, including the mortgage payments, is one to which s. 114 applies. It would hardly seem necessary for the protection of the wife. It would seem to be more of an order in respect of spousal maintenance. In any event the husband has deposed that he has been making those payments, as set out at paragraph [38] of his affidavit of 27th November 2010 and paragraph 11 of his affidavit of 17th December 2010. I am not persuaded that the evidence adduced justifies the making of Orders 4 or 5 of the wife’s interim application.
Again, the application for exclusive use of the Toyota Prado may be an application for an injunction under s.114(1)(e), an injunction in relation to the property of a party to the marriage, but again it would hardly seem necessary for the protection of the wife. It is more in the line of an interim property order, which should be discussed at a conciliation conference.
I am not persuaded that the evidence adduced justifies the making of Orders 6 and 7 of the wife’s interim application.
The real issue, of course, is the application for the exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home. It is well established that the onus is on the applicant for the exclusion order (In the Marriage of Davis and Davis[44]).
[44] supra
Each case must be considered on its own facts and merits. It is a relevant matter that the parties are not both residing in the matrimonial home. The wife lives in that house with the children. The husband lives in a nearby cottage on the same block of land. The husband has deposed that he does not have a key to the house in which the wife lives; he gave his only key to the parties’ daughter [X] in approximately July 2010.[45]
[45] Affidavit of Mr Greene 27.11.2010 at [41]
It is also relevant that the wife no longer needs to access the cottage in order to use the laundry, because there is evidence that the husband moved the laundry out of the cottage, so that it is between the cottage and the house in which the wife lives.
It is relevant, too, that the husband has deposed that he has no desire to access the residence in which the wife lives[46] and seeks an order that the applicant wife reside in the house to the exclusion of himself and that he reside in the cottage to the exclusion of the wife.
[46] Ibid at [41]
Further, it is relevant that there is an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order in force, to which the husband consented.
All of the above matters cast doubt on the need for the serious order that the wife seeks, which is to exclude the husband from a cottage in which she herself does not reside.
However, the contents of some of the wife’s text messages to the husband strongly suggest that she does not in fact fear the husband at all. True it is that she does not concede that the times on the messages are accurate, but she does not deny the contents of the text messages themselves.
Some of the wife’s text messages are couched in a highly aggressive tone, whilst others go beyond the merely insulting to be quite breathtaking in their crudity. Some examples are quoted below;
03/08/2010 I think you better pack up your shit and leave, I cannot put up with you or your mother any more. Does it make you feel good to put me down everyday?? I’ve done my best for my family always. Why don’t you move in with her?? Because you just want to try and drive me out! Why don’t you start telling the truth for a change???
09/08/2010 Why don’t you ask “Paul”[47] which way to wipe the shit from your colon in the morning. Seems to me he is an expert bum steerer. $$$$$$$$$. 20 years together, should be crackers by now shouldn’t I??? Well
11/08/2010 …If you were so concerned tell me why you called your money grabbing solicitor BEFORE you called the police??? HE TOLD YOU to call the police because he is a grub, he is thinking of himself, not you not me & most definately[48] not our children. Wake up sunshine.
11/08/2010 PS. Ask him if he’s a pill popping, powder snorting womanizer like his brother
[47] This is presumably a reference to the husband’s solicitor
[48] Sic
12/08/2010 …Grow up, do you have any functioning brain cells left???
16/08/2010 And you want me to get a fucking job you dickhead. What the hell have I been doing with my life 24 hous[49], seven days a week, 52 weeks a year for the last 18 fucking years??? Oh yeah NOTHING. Get your hand off your dick you wanker.
16/08/2010 Tell your new best buddy Paul, from me, I think he’s a big, ugly, stinking, fat turd. I know he’s giving you a bum steer cause he knows you’re an idiot.
[49] sic
These messages were followed by seven successive text messages, consisting of the individual letters ‘f’ ‘u’ ‘c’ ‘k’ ‘y’ ‘o’ ‘u’.
There were further text messages:
16/08/2010 How was your 10 hours of sleep last night huh? Peaceful?? I’ve had about 3 hours this morning, I feel like shit & I am fucking angry. Think I’ll ring Bernadette[50] later, let her know how I feel, you’ll probably hear about it in another letter from her. My new motto “go get ‘em Berny.”
16/08/2010 LIAR, LIAR, LIAR
[50] This appears to be a reference to the wife’s solicitor
18/09/2010 Answer your bloody phone
27/08/2010 …Seems u cannot tell the truth about ANYTHING. You’re a compulsive LIAR. R u going to tell the truth on judgment day???? Truth & honesty will always prevail in the end. Remember that, if u can.
Surprisingly, after these vitriolic messages, the wife sent the husband a text message dated 12/09/2010 saying:
We’re at hervey bay airport about to board, take of @ 12, arrive at 1.55 flight no DJ 1556 if you want to meet us.
This application was conducted as an interim application, so none of the affidavit evidence was tested by cross examination. However, even though the wife told the Court that the times on the text messages were incorrect, there was no denial of the contents of the messages themselves. In my view, this stream of insulting and aggressive messages to the husband who was presumably in the cottage only a few metres from the house in which the wife was living does not sound at all like the words of a person who was in fear of her personal safety.
I am not all satisfied that the wife has made out a case for exclusive occupation. The application will be dismissed.
It would seem to me that the orders sought by the husband in his Amended Response should help to keep the situation under control until the parties can resolve their property claims. An important first step would be for the parties to attend a conciliation conference before a Registrar of the Court.
The wife would do well to keep her critical opinions of the husband and his solicitor to herself for the time being.
I certify that the preceding seventy-five (75) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Date: 11 January 2011