McPHERSON and Agies

[2009] FamCA 841

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCPHERSON & AGIES [2009] FamCA 841

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Contravention application struck out

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms McPherson

RESPONDENT: Mr Agies

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 397 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 4 August 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 4 August 2009

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: IN PERSON

THE RESPONDENT: IN PERSON

Orders

1. That the contravention application filed by the mother on 5 June 2009 be struck out.

2. That my reasons for judgment this day be transcribed and placed on the court file.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym McPherson & Agies is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 397 of 2008

MS MCPHERSON

Applicant

And

MR AGIES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a busy duty list day and Ms McPherson is the applicant, to have Mr Agies dealt with for contravention of orders of the court. 

2. The application is significantly larger than I would have thought sensible, because the allegations go back to 4 October 2007.  I had some discussions with the parties early in the morning, during a call-over of proceedings, and indicated that the matter would be stood down, and would be dealt with in the list as soon as I could possibly call it. 

3. Ms McPherson was called at 12 noon and did not appear. 

4. Mr Agies has been present throughout the morning.  At 12 noon, I adjourned to deal with another matter, and I am told by Mr Agies that, in the intervening period, Ms McPherson popped her head in the door but has disappeared again.  At 12.45 pm she has been called and there is no appearance.  On that basis, I conclude that she is not proceeding with her application, or, alternatively, has chosen to conduct the case in a way which is totally unsatisfactory to the court. 

5. The contravention application will be struck out.

6. I note from the file there is another hearing on 13 August – a registrar’s list relating to parenting issues.  Mr Agies confirmed he knew about that date.

I certify that the preceding Six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 
Date:  10 August 2009