Lawson and Hill (No 2)

[2015] FamCA 1093

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LAWSON & HILL (NO 2) [2015] FamCA 1093

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL

APPLICANT: Mr Lawson

RESPONDENT: Ms Hill

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Christaki

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1626 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 8 December 2015 in chambers

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 8 December 2015 in chambers

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: n/a

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: n/a

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: n/a

Orders

1. The Father’s Application in a Case filed 3 December 2015 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lawson & Hill 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1626 of 2012

Mr Lawson

Applicant

And

Ms Hill

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I make the following determination in chambers.

2. On 3 December 2015 father has filed an Application in a Case seeking an order that a decision of a Registrar in relation to the listing of the Application in a Case dated 27 November 2015 be reviewed and that the Application in a Case dated 27 November 2015 be heard on an urgent basis.

3. The application filed 27 November 2015 seeks final orders relating to the school at which the child C born in 2010 will commence in term 1 2016; telephone communication and orders that would facilitate it on two occasions a week and for the surname of the child to be changed.

4. The final hearing of this matter has commenced before me and the final stage of that hearing is listed to continue on 4 April 2016.

5. The Registrar had listed this interim application in a duty list on 17 February 2016.

6. The child’s surname will be a matter to be determined at the final hearing.

7. The report of the single expert indicates that the single expert would be reluctant to recommend electronic communication between the child and the father.

8. In relation to schooling, it is clear that the mother has raised the issue of the child’s school as far back as 2013 and confirmed her intention to start the child at a particular school by way of letter of 15 October 2015. The father did not file his application until 27 November 2015.

9. The primary basis upon which the father now seeks urgency is, “To avoid any further disturbances of the child’s routine and stability”. He also wants the child’s surname issue dealt with before he starts school, “To avoid any confusion and uncertainty”.

10. It is in the child’s best interest that all these matters be dealt with in the same hearing and accordingly I list the father’s Application in a Case filed 27 November 2015 before myself on 4 April 2016 with the applications that are listed for hearing on 4 April 2016 and I dismiss the father’s Application in a Case filed 3 December 2015.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered in chambers on 8 December 2015

Associate: 

Date:  8.12.2015