KRACH & KRACH

[2013] FamCA 297

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KRACH & KRACH [2013] FamCA 297

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Contravention application – oral application to abridge time – application dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Krach

RESPONDENT: Ms Krach

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2897 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 11 April 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATE: 11 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: N/A

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The mother’s oral application to abridge time for the hearing of her Application for Contravention filed 8 April 2013 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Krach & Krach 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 2897 of 2008

Mr Krach

Applicant

And

Ms Krach

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The mother in this case filed an Application for Contravention in the Federal Magistrates Court at Dandenong on 17 December 2012. That application alleged that the father had contravened paragraph 6(e) of the orders made 13 February 2012 in that on 15 December 2012 he had failed, without reasonable excuse, to allow the mother to spend time with the children, L and S, pursuant to the orders. That application was supported by an Affidavit sworn by the mother on 17 December 2012 and also filed that same day.

2. The application was listed for hearing in the Federal Magistrates Court at Dandenong on 12 February 2013.  On 10 January 2013 the father filed an Application in a Case seeking to have the matter transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court in Melbourne. That application was supported by an Affidavit filed the same day.

3. On 7 February 2013 the father filed an Initiating Application, an Amended Application in a Case, and an Affidavit in support of those applications.  On 12 February 2013 the matter came on for hearing before Curtin FM, as he then was, who transferred the matter to this Court. The matter was listed for hearing in the duty list before me today.

4. On 8 April 2013 the mother filed a further Application for Contravention, Affidavit in support of that application, and an Affidavit in reply to the father’s Affidavit.  The further Application for Contravention was listed for hearing in the judicial duty list on 10 May 2013.  It contains some 14 alleged contraventions.

5. The mother now seeks to have time abridged for the Application for Contravention filed 8 April 2013 to be dealt with this day.  I am told by the father that he was served with the further Application for Contravention and the two Affidavits on Tuesday 9 April 2013.

6. He opposes the abridgement of time on the basis that he requires time to prepare his response to the alleged contraventions.  In all of the circumstances, given the number of contraventions and the complexity of this matter and the long history of the matter, I am not satisfied that I should abridge the time to enable the matter to proceed today, which would have the effect of having given the father only a day between service and the hearing of this matter.

7. The first Application for Contravention filed 17 December 2012 however, was transferred to this Court and listed this day, and I am advised by the father that he is in a position to proceed with that application and I propose to hear that application this day.

8. There is likely to be some difficulty with respect to the other aspects of his application and for that matter any hearing of the substantive issues as to what time the mother is to spend with the two children whilst the remaining contraventions are outstanding.  However, insofar as the mother wishes to pursue her contravention application, that matter will have to await the hearing on 10 May 2013, or such other date the application may be adjourned to because of the length of that hearing.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Macmillan delivered on 11 April 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  3 May 2013