Lewin and Lewin

[2015] FamCA 37

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEWIN & LEWIN [2015] FamCA 37

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case Guardian appointment

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Lewin

RESPONDENT: Ms Lewin

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10662 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 13 January 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 13 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Wood

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Nicholes Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Dowler

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Richmond & Bennison

Orders

1. That BY CONSENT there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the wife engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

3. That the parties attend a conciliation conference at 11.00am on 25 March 2015

4. That each party have leave to file such subpoenae as they may be so advised.

5. That the husband be represented by the proposed case guardian.

6. That the reasons for the appointment of a case guardian be transcribed and be placed on the court file.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lewin & Lewin 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 10662 of 2014

Mr Lewin

Applicant

And

Ms Lewin

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under which the court is asked to appoint a case guardian.  The evidence relied upon is a report attached to an affidavit by the proposed guardian.  The particular medical practitioner makes an assessment that the litigant’s capacity to make informed decisions with regard to the management of his finances is compromised.  The extent and nature of the cognitive impairment that he demonstrated upon objective evaluation will significantly undermine his capacity to weigh information before him in order to make well-reasoned decisions in relation to matters concerning the management of his finances.  On the basis of just that statement, I am satisfied that Mr Lewin requires a case guardian.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin J delivered on 13 January 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  28 January 2015