Kuay-Hoa and Hoa and Ors

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KUAY-HOA & HOA & ORS [2010] FamCA 1278

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the applicant sought an extension of time to file written submissions – Where the applicant did not file written submissions pursuant to a previous order – Extension of time granted.

APPLICANT: Ms Kuay-Hoa

FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Hoa

SECOND RESPONDENT: B Pty Ltd

THRID RESPONDENT: Mr C

FOURTH RESPONDENT: Ms D

FILE NUMBER: MLC 931 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 25 June 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 25 June 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms E Swart

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Kennedy Guy

FIRST RESPONDENT: In Person

SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS: No Appearance

FOURTH RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

1. That the Order made on 5 March 2010 be varied to provide that the applicant file and serve any written submissions by way of final address by not later than 4.00 pm on 29 June 2010.

2. That in the event that a query arises out of the final submissions by any of the parties the matter be listed before me in July 2010 for clarification. Otherwise the decision is reserved.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hoa& Kuay-Hoa and Ors is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 931 of 2007

Ms Kuay-Hoa

Applicant

And

Mr Hoa

First Respondent

B Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Mr C

Third Respondent

Ms D

Fourth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ex-tempore

1. In the matter of Kuay-Hoa and Hoa, I will pronounce some brief reasons for judgment.  After a very long trial concluding on 5 March 2010, I made directions for written submissions.  They were that the applicant wife file her submissions by 23 March 2010 and the first and second respondents file their submissions by 13 April 2010.  In the event that these submissions raised matters which the court or either of the parties required to be addressed, a further hearing date was to occur after 25 May 2010.  No written submissions by the applicant wife have been received by the court or the other parties. 

2. On 13 April 2010 at 4.26pm, both the first and second named respondents filed their written submissions.  They are extremely brief.  Due to the non-compliance by the applicant with the order for written submissions, I required the matter to be listed today.  Today, the applicant attends court and seeks leave to file an application in a case in which she seeks an extension of time to enable written submissions to be filed by the wife and any such further order as is appropriate. 

3. There is an affidavit from the wife’s solicitor, Mr Rennick, giving the circumstances of a personal nature of the unavailability of counsel to do the submissions, and also the fact that the solicitor who had carriage of the matter, Mr Kinoff, has ceased employment with that firm.  It is correct to say…