Henty and Sullivan

[2011] FamCA 636

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HENTY & SULLIVAN [2011] FamCA 636

FAMILY LAW – Ex-parte application to review listing decision of Registrar – Service required – Transcript ordered

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Henty

RESPONDENT: Ms Sullivan

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 738 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 9 August 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Young J

HEARING DATE: 9 August 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person – ex-parte

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Macgregor Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Agricola Wunderlich & Associates

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED:

1. THAT the father’s Application in a Case filed 8 August 2011 be dismissed.

2. THAT the extempore reasons for judgment be transcribed, be placed upon the Court file and be made available to all parties.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Henty & Sullivan 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 738 of 2010

Mr Henty

Applicant

And

Ms Sullivan

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The matter of Henty has been listed as a matter of urgency before me at 11 am this day in the Judicial Duty List.  The matter arose when the Registrar of the Family Court, Registrar Field, requested the matter be added to my Duty List to consider the filing and permission being granted for a Review of the administrative decision made on listing issues by Registrar Field.  The husband sought a review and an abridgement of a hearing date as a matter of urgency as identified in paragraph 2 of this handwritten Application which is now before me and which was presented to the Court yesterday. 

2. I understand this Application was filed by Registrar Field.  It bears the handwritten filing date of 8 August.  It does not have a filing stamp on the document and I will ask my court officer to attend to that matter at the conclusion of this hearing.  Earlier the husband, on 4 August, had filed an Application In a Case seeking various orders for enforcement of custody, spending time with his daughter, S, and other orders in respect of the independent psychiatrist and the Independent Children's Lawyers.

3. All matters are currently returnable before Senior Registrar FitzGibbon on 23 August of this year.  All copies of the current Applications were on the Court file.  I have retained the original and handed the other three copies to the husband.  None of those Applications have as yet been served upon the various respondents, and that must be done as a matter of urgency.  That 23 August hearing date remains alive. 

4. On an earlier date – that is, on 3 August 2011 – the husband had filed a Contravention Application.  That is returnable in the Judicial Duty List before Cronin J on 3 October 2011.  That matter remains alive.

5. It is alleged by the husband that without reasonable excuse or reply the wife refused to allow him to spend time with his daughter S.  There is an affidavit accompanying that Contravention Application and that affidavit is intended by the husband to be relied upon both in the contravention matter but also in the earlier hearing of interim orders sought on 23 August of this year before the Senior Registrar.  I leave that affidavit upon the file, but it is the husband’s obligation to serve that document on all respondents.

6. Insofar as that there is before me an Application In a Case filed by the leave of Registrar Field yesterday, I refuse any hearing of that matter today.  I will not proceed with the Review and will not abridge the hearing dates – that is, both the dates of 23 August and 3 October.  At the highest, what the husband can do on 23 August is, and at a time when both the wife and the Independent Children's Lawyer are in Court and can hear the Application, then persuade the Court to bring forward the Contravention Application.  I give no comfort to any prospects of success, but that is not a matter that will be before me and can be heard by the Senior Registrar on that date and time.

7. As to the Application In a Case filed 8 August, I dismiss that Application.  Otherwise, all other procedural aspects of this case are in place.  I will direct that my reasons for judgment, given ex tempore and without leaving the Bench, be transcribed, placed upon the Court file and made available not just to the husband, but to the wife and to the Independent Children's Lawyer so they may ascertain what, without notice to them, was undertaken by the husband.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the supplementary judgment of the Honourable Justice Young delivered on 9 August 2011._

Associate:

Date:  9 August 2011