Lupez and Lupez and Anor

Case

[2012] FamCA 549


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LUPEZ & LUPEZ AND ANOR [2012] FamCA 549
FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE  - Application - Dismissal or Striking Out
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004
APPLICANT: Ms Lupez
FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Lupez
SECOND RESPONDENT: G Nominees Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER: SYC 791 of 2009
DATE DELIVERED: 12 July 2012
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Stevenson J
HEARING DATE: 5 July 2012

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST AND

SECOND RESPONDENTS:

Ronayne Lawyers

Orders

  1. That all outstanding Applications and Responses are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lupez & Lupez and Anor 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 791 of 2009

Ms Lupez

Applicant

And

Mr Lupez

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 13 February 2009 the wife, Ms Lupez, filed an application for spouse maintenance and alteration of property interests.  The respondents to the application are the husband, Mr Lupez, and a company known as G Nominees Pty Limited.  According to the wife’s affidavit sworn on 8 February 2012 she was originally the sole director and shareholder of this company but the husband registered himself as a co-director in October 2008.  The wife’s affidavit suggested that her mother held shares in this company at one time but that she had no interest as at 8 February 2012.

  2. On 8 February 2012 the wife deposed that the husband held interests in companies known as AA Pty Limited and M Pty Limited and perhaps other corporate entities.  The wife’s affidavit suggested that the husband had access to substantial funds.

  3. Both the docket Registrar and I experienced great difficulty in having the parties comply with directions to prepare the case for trial.  The Registrar made multiple directions for, inter alia, production of documents, filing of affidavits and preparation of a report by a forensic accountant as to the value of the husband’s corporate interests.  Ultimately, on 4 June 2012, the Registrar listed proceedings before me for final hearing on 14 and 15 June 2012.  On 4 June 2012 the husband’s solicitor attended but there was no appearance of or on behalf of the wife.  She failed to appear or be represented at the previous two Court events on 22 May 2012 and 29 May 2012.  The husband’s solicitor informed the Registrar on 4 June 2012 that he had attempted to contact the wife by telephone and letter at her last known address but received no response.

  4. On 14 June 2012 there was no appearance of or on behalf of the wife.  The Registrar had directed the husband’s solicitor to advise her in writing of the hearing dates and possible consequences of non-attendance.  I am satisfied that the husband’s solicitor complied with these directions and, in any event, the orders and directions made on 22 May 2012 and 29 May 2012 had been posted to the wife.

  5. On 14 June 2012 I directed the Registrar to provide to each of the parties notice in writing that it was my intention to dismiss all outstanding applications herein for want of prosecution pursuant to the Family Law Rules 2004 when the matter next came before me at 9.30am on 5 July 2012. It was necessary for the proceedings to be so adjourned to ensure compliance with Rule 11.06. The solicitor for the husband indicated that he consented to the dismissal of all outstanding applications and responses.

  6. On 5 July 2012 there was again no appearance of or on behalf of the wife.  The solicitor for the husband appeared and indicated again that he would consent to the dismissal of all outstanding applications and responses.  Accordingly, I so ordered and the proceedings are now at an end.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Stevenson delivered on 12 July 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  12/7/2012

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Consent

  • Jurisdiction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0