King and King and Ors

[2017] FamCA 1116

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KING & KING AND ORS [2017] FamCA 1116

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – bifurcation of proceedings – Adjournment of property proceedings – Respondents excused.

APPLICANT: Ms King

FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr M King

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr B King

THIRD RESPONDENT:	Ms N King
FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH RESPONDENT:	King Investments Pty Ltd O Pty Ltd P Pty Ltd
SEVENTH RESPONDENT:	Ms C King

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Dunstan

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9554 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 11 December 2107

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 11 December 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:	Mr Staindl
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Clancy & Triado

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	RB Flinders

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Bonney

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND TO SIXTH RESPONDENTS:	Mr Knight
SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND TO SIXTH RESPONDENTS:	Knight Family Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT:	In Person

Orders

1.The property proceedings be bifurcated from the parenting proceedings in this matter and the parenting proceedings proceed before me now.

2.The property proceedings be adjourned to a date to be fixed pending further case management.

3.The costs of all parties of and incidental to this day thrown away by virtue of the property proceedings not proceeding be and are hereby reserved.

4.My reasons for decision be transcribed and when settled placed on the Court file and a copy provided to the parties.

5.The second to sixth named respondents be and are hereby excused from participating in the parenting proceedings before me or needing representation for that purpose.

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 King & King & Ors 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 9554 of 2011

Ms King

Applicant

And

Mr M King

First Respondent

And

Mr B King
(Second Respondent)

And

Ms N King
(Third Respondent)

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

And

KING INVESTMENTS PTY LTD;
O PTY LTD; and
P PTY LTD.

(Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents)

And

Ms C King

Seventh Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes before me for the final hearing of property proceedings and parenting proceedings which have been before the court for something in excess of six years.  They are not adequately prepared.  It is common ground by all parties at the bar table that the property application is not in a state to proceed today.  The second to sixth respondents and the first respondent husband say that is because they were late served with material field by the wife last week or otherwise sought to be relied upon, and that includes the affidavit of a valuer, which was only sworn and served this morning.

2. I haven’t read the wife’s material, so I don’t know to what extent these facts were not already before the court and genuinely take any party by surprise.  What I can say is that this case is the most abysmally prepared case that I have struck in the registry.  If I thought that there was any percentage in forcing the property matter on, I would do so.  The matter has been subject to two financial conciliation conferences in February 2015 and October 2015; seven case management hearings to ready the matter for trial from July 2014 to date, 5 judicial duty list hearings for contravention proceedings and eight days of defended or aborted defended hearings.  The parents, children and adult family members have attended for a family report assessment and a current family report was released in November 2017.

3. As matters stand there is a fairly pressing parenting aspect to it where the children concerned are adolescents wanting to get on with their lives and pleading through the family consultant for a finalisation of the parenting proceedings.

4. So I will take what time I can to deal with the parenting aspect of the matter so that at least it is finalised. 

5. Were I to do otherwise and keep the proceedings together I am concerned that the parenting matter would not be finalised, and that would not be in the best interests of the two girls who are subject to the applications by their mother, their father and their older sister. 

6. I won’t labour the point that I consider that there has been a lack of adequate preparation in this matter.  It is an understatement to say that I am disappointed that the property aspect cannot proceed at this stage.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 11 December 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  5 January 2017