Loomis

[2017] FamCA 852

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LOOMIS [2017] FamCA 852

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Leave to file an Application in a Case – Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an Application in a Case – Where the hearing of the substantive application has been completed and judgment is reserved – Where the applicant seeks to re-open the evidence and join two third parties to the proceedings – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

EB v CT (No.2) [2008] QSC 306
Summitt & Summitt and Ors (Re-opening) [2009] FamCA 365

APPLICANT: Mr Loomis

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1010 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 27 October 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 24 October 2017

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: By Telephone

Orders

1. The Husband is not granted leave to formally file and serve his Application in a Case filed on 4 October 2017, and, to the extent that it is necessary, it is hereby dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Loomis has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1010 of 2012

Mr Loomis

Applicant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. For determination is another Application in a Case filed by Mr Loomis, the First Respondent in property settlement proceedings commenced by his former wife, Ms Thurston.  On 10 December 2015, a four day trial of the competing applications concluded.  In May 2016, I made interim orders and gave reasons for determining that before final judgment could be delivered that the parties’ self-managed superannuation fund needed to be put back into compliant status in so far as that was possible to be achieved, with the assistance of a Court appointed expert. That was achieved last year and funds approaching $600,000 are held on behalf of the parties’ Superannuation fund by the solicitor who used to act for the husband and his two companies that are also parties to the proceedings.

2. I gave the parties leave to file any further written submissions they considered appropriate and Mr Loomis filed some in February this year. My final judgment has now been reserved since those last written submissions of the parties were filed. Whilst reserved, I have had to hear and determine several further applications filed by each of the parties. As I already observed this is another one filed by the husband.

3. I have previously ordered that neither party file any further applications without first obtaining my leave. When this one was brought to…