Hurley and Hurley

[2017] FamCA 18

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HURLEY & HURLEY [2017] FamCA 18

FAMILY LAW – LEAVE to serve orders and judgement on non-parties.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Hurley

RESPONDENT: The Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Mr Hurley

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10641 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 20 January 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 20 January 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Melilli

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Borchard & Moore

Orders

1. That the practitioners for the wife have leave to serve a copy of the orders this day and the reasons for judgment upon:

   (a)      Mr B as receiver for C Lawyers;

   (b)      Mr D; and

   (c)      Mr E as trustee for the F Superannuation Fund.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hurley & Hurley has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10641  of 2016

Ms Hurley

Applicant

And

The Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Mr Hurley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Orders were made and reasons for them delivered arising out of an application by the wife under s 44(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).

2. Because the only matter anticipated was the delivery of judgment and the publication of orders, the parties were excused.  Mr Melilli of counsel however appeared indicating that because there were parallel proceedings being conducted in the Supreme Court of Victoria associated with the same financial matter, which proceedings have been put on hold pending the determination of the wife’s entitlement to those financial resources, it was thought prudent, let alone courteous, to notify the relevant participants in those Supreme Court proceedings, of the judgment this day.

3. On the face of the orders pronounced, it would not be obvious what has happened because the applications of both the wife and the respondent have been dismissed. That dismissal arises because the wife’s application was for leave to proceed under s 44(3) of the Act and I deemed leave unnecessary on the basis that her application could proceed as of right by virtue of the consent of the husband.

4. Albeit that the other parties were not in attendance, I find no prejudice to them in making this order in their absence. It is simply a matter of ensuring comity between courts but also common courtesy for the non-parties. Because of the provisions of s 121 of the Act which creates sanctions for publication of details, I consider it is appropriate for the persons named in the order to have not just those orders but the reasons for them.

I certify that the preceding Four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 20 January 2017.

Associate

Date:  20 January 2017