Kolovos and Kolovos (Ruling No.3)
[2009] FMCAfam 1176
•4 September 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KOLOVOS & KOLOVOS (Ruling No.3) | [2009] FMCAfam 1176 |
| FAMILY LAW – Interim ruling. |
| Applicant: | MS KOLOVOS |
| Respondent: | MR KOLOVOS |
| File Number: | MLC 6862 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Burchardt FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 September 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 September 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 4 September 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr J. Fronistas |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Antippa Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr P. Davis |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Maria Barbayannis & Co. |
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Kolovos & Kolovos (Ruling No.3) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLC 6862 of 2008
| MS KOLOVOS |
Applicant
And
| MR KOLOVOS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ruling)
Mr Davis, counsel for the father, has made a formal submission that I should, at this point, cease further cross-examination of this witness, in essence because of his advanced years and ill health. I am going to uphold that submission at this stage. The reason is, first, it is absolutely patent from his demeanour that this witness is indeed of advanced years and in ill health, and I think the strain of this proceeding upon him is something the Court should have proper regard to.
Furthermore, I have permitted quite extensive cross-examination on what might be said to be the critical evidence that this person gives. Other matters which appear to me, frankly, to be tangential are not going to be of sufficient assistance to me to make it appropriate to continue this witness’ discomfort. Not only that, the tenor of his answers is perfectly clear. He is well aware of what is in issue, both as it regards him and, I think, as regards the rest of the controversy, and he has a very clear view about it that he has made crystal-clear, and I will evaluate that, of course. But I do not think, in these circumstances, it is appropriate to allow further cross-examination.
I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Burchardt FM
Associate: Ms B Evans
Date: 4 September 2009
0
0
0