KRAEMER & KRAEMER

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Kraemer (the applicant mother) and Mr C Kraemer (the second respondent, the mother's father) sought orders against Mr Kraemer (the first respondent father) concerning property and parenting matters. The dispute involved an application by the second respondent and the applicant to sell a property, to which the first respondent was not a legal titleholder but had lodged a caveat. Additionally, the applicant mother sought an ex parte order to suspend existing parenting orders for the children to spend time with the first respondent father.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interlocutory orders permitting the sale of the property, notwithstanding the first respondent's opposition and failure to provide a formal address for service or file responding material. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether to make ex parte orders suspending the parenting arrangements, despite the first respondent not having notice of this specific application, given his alleged non-compliance with existing orders and the best interests of the children.

Regarding the property sale, the court reasoned that the first respondent's persistent failure to engage with the proceedings, including not attending court, filing material, or providing an address for service, indicated a lack of significant evidence to contradict the applicant and second respondent's claims. The court noted that while it is reluctant to make interim orders that cannot be undone, the circumstances, including the mother's financial position and the potential complexities of equitable interests in the property, justified the orders. The court also found that the first respondent had been made aware of the application and the proposed orders. In relation to the parenting orders, the court found that the first respondent's alleged non-compliance with existing orders for supervised time and urinalysis, coupled with his general discourtesy to the court, made it appropriate to suspend the parenting orders in the best interests of the children, despite the denial of natural justice inherent in an ex parte order.

Consequently, the court made orders permitting the sale of the property, requiring the first respondent to remove his caveat and provide vacant possession, and suspending the existing parenting orders until further order. The court also ordered the first respondent to provide disclosure regarding a business venture within 21 days. The costs of the second respondent and other parties present were reserved.