Holstead and Holstead

[2013] FamCA 687

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HOLSTEAD & HOLSTEAD [2013] FamCA 687

FAMILY LAW – Ruling; objections

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Holstead

RESPONDENT: Mr Holstead

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1297 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 26 August 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 26 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Nehmy

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Kenna Teasdale Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hill

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Law 24

Orders

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Holstead & Holstead 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 1297 of 2012

Ms Holstead

Applicant

And

Mr Holstead

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a ruling in respect of objections to evidence.  I reject the objection to paragraph 4 insofar as it relates to the statement of fact but I uphold the objection in relation to the annexure of the various medical statements MH01 and I will strike those out.  Sections 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act govern the determination of what evidence is admissible and what is not and it’s on that basis that I uphold the objection in respect of paragraph 13.  It’s not a statement of fact but it is in fact an unfounded belief. 

2. I uphold the objection to paragraph 54 on the basis that it’s a conclusion unsupported by evidence, and in respect of paragraph 72 whatever the meaning of the relevant paragraph it certainly seems to me to be an argument rather than a statement of fact, and insofar as it was a negotiation it shouldn’t be in the affidavit.  I uphold the objection in respect of paragraph 80.5 and 80.6 on the basis that they are both comments and arguments.  Those respective paragraphs will therefore be struck out.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 26 August 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  6 September 2013