Hurst & Lindsay (No. 2)

[2013] FamCA 688

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HURST & LINDSAY (NO. 2) [2013] FamCA 688

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application under s 69ZT that the rules of evidence apply

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Hurst

RESPONDENT: Mr Lindsay

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Dowler

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5070 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 25 June 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 26 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Sansom

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Peninsula Law

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Dowler

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Danielle Webb Lawyer

Orders

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hurst & Lindsay (No. 2) 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 5070 of 2009

Ms Hurst

Applicant

And

Mr Lindsay

Respondent

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application made at the commencement of a trial for an order under s 69ZT that the rules of evidence be applied.  The whole purpose of Division 12A is to ensure that evidence is before the Court to enable it to make the appropriate decisions without the formalities of proving a lot of the issues, as to be fulfilled.  In this case, what is put by the mother is that the child is very young, there are protective issues involving both parties relating to drugs and hurting the child, the circumstances of the case are not only difficult but exceptional.  I do not find that they are exceptional.  I certainly accept that they are difficult and I accept that all the other issues are there as well, but it does not seem to me that this is an exceptional case.  This is the very reason why Division 12A was put into place.  On that basis, the application is refused. 

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 25 June 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  24 July 2013