Lang and Lang

[2007] FamCA 93

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LYNCH & LYNCH [2007] FamCA 93

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY

APPLICANT: MRS LYNCH

RESPONDENT: MR LYNCH

FILE NUMBER: HBC 38 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 7 February 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 7 February 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Courtney

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Chopping

Orders

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

1. THAT the husband do all acts and things necessary to return to the applicant wife the Hyundai motor vehicle registration number … within three days from the date of these orders.

2. THAT the remainder of the application in a case filed 9 January 2007 be dismissed.

3. THAT the Form 1 application be adjourned to a Registrar’s Directions hearing at 10.00am on 21 February 2007.

   IT IS NOTED

4. THAT the remainder of that application has not been heard on its merits and that it is open for the applicant to re-apply for such orders subject to evidence in support of such application.

   IT IS DIRECTED

5. THAT the parties contact and make an appointment to attend at the Family Relationship Centre at Hobart within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.

6. THAT the parties attend at such appointment at the Family Relationships Centre and make a bona fide endeavour to resolve their conflict through the processes provided by that Centre.

7. THAT a copy of the reasons for these orders be ordered and placed on the Court file.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

1. THAT the question of costs of both parties be reserved.

   IT IS CERTIFIED

2. THAT pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART

FILE NUMBER: HBC 38  of 2007

MRS LYNCH

Applicant

And

MR LYNCH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The issue before me today relates primarily to a Hyundai motor vehicle which is part of the matrimonial property.  The wife deposes that on 28 December 2006, the husband came to the home in the middle of the night and took the only car she had and took the car without permission. 

2. She deposes she is now left without a car, which makes it almost impossible for her to attend her place of employment.  She says that she has attempted to call the husband but he refuses to take the calls.

3. On 29 December she went to the husband's home to try and retrieve the car and was unable to gain access. She deposes and it seems to be agreed that the husband has a motor vehicle which is a utility.  The wife seeks the return of that car. 

4. There are other items to which she had sought return but does not press those applications today and they will be dismissed, but noting that they have not been heard on their merits, and with leave for the wife if she chooses to come back and argue that aspect of her case with a fresh Form 2 application.

5. The Full Court in the recent decision of M & D B [2006] Fam CA 1380.  It seems to me that this is an appropriate order for the return of the car to the mother to at least retain it until the finalisation of the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding five paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin

Associate      :       

Date               :       15 February 2007

IT IS NOTED that this judgment for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as LYNCH & LYNCH