MEDLON & MEDLON
[2015] FamCAFC 15
•20 January 2015
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MEDLON & MEDLON | [2015] FamCAFC 15 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATIONS IN AN APPEAL – Where the wife asserts that no hearing is possible at this stage given that she wishes to issue subpoenas which cover periods outside the periods in respect of which she is currently able to issue subpoenas – Where there has been no appeal against the order made for the issuing of subpoenas and therefore that order stands – Applications listed for hearing. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – ORAL APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION – Where the wife seeks that the appeal judge disqualify himself – Application dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Medlon |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Medlon |
| FILE NUMBER: | ADC | 491 | of | 2010 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | SOA | 88 | of | 2012 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 20 January 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Adelaide |
| PLACE HEARD: | Adelaide |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Strickland J |
| HEARING DATE: | 20 January 2015 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Magistrates Court |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 30 October 2012 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2012] FMCAfam 1479 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPLICANT: | In person |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Ms Gough |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Adelaide Family Law |
Orders
The oral application of the wife seeking that the Honourable Justice Strickland be disqualified from further hearing this matter be dismissed.
The application in an appeal filed by the wife on 5 July 2013 insofar as that application seeks an order restraining Ms Nelson QC and Ms Collie, the husband’s solicitor, from acting in these proceedings, and the application in an appeal filed on 14 August 2013 seeking suppression of all judgments issued in this matter be listed for hearing before the Honourable Justice Strickland commencing at 10:00am (ACDST) on Thursday 12 February 2015.
The wife have leave to attend the hearing by way of telephone link.
IT IS NOTED THAT:
The wife has indicated that she will file a Notice of Address for Service within the time prescribed in the Rules of Court.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Medlon & Medlon has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
Appeal Number: SOA 88 of 2012
File Number: ADC 491 of 2010
| Ms Medlon |
Applicant
And
| Mr Medlon |
Respondent
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter was last before this Court on 23 October 2014 when the outstanding applications were identified, and it was agreed that the application that needed to be listed and heard first was Ms Medlon’s (“the wife’s) application to restrain Ms Nelson QC as counsel, and Ms Collie as solicitor, from further acting for Mr Medlon (“the husband”).
On 23 October we also looked at what dates could be fixed for the hearing of that application. Unfortunately, the wife was going to be moving to the Eastern States from Western Australia and was unsure of her employment position, and thus I adjourned the applications to today for the purposes of conducting a telephone directions hearing to list those applications for hearing in the week commencing 9 February 2015. That was a week identified by both the wife, Mr Grant (who appeared for the husband on that day), and myself, as a period that was available for the hearing of this matter.
This morning the wife has appeared by telephone link, as has Ms Gough on behalf of the husband.
The wife has indicated that from her position any hearing at this stage is not possible given that she wishes to issue subpoenas which cover periods outside the periods in respect of which I permitted her to issue subpoenas in my order of 9 September 2013. For my part, I have indicated to the wife that my decision of 9 September 2013 as to first, the subpoenas that she was able to issue and secondly, the period of time that those subpoenas were to cover, stands. There has been no appeal against those orders. As I understand it the wife has made attempts to file an application in an appeal seeking to vary those orders of 9 September 2013. In my view that is not the appropriate way to go about this matter, but that is a matter for the wife.
What I propose to do then is to list the applications of the wife, in relation to the injunctions, for hearing in the week commencing 9 February 2015. I fully appreciate that the wife may take further proceedings which might impact upon that, such as appealing my earlier decision, or rather seeking an extension to appeal that decision, for example, or indeed she might still pursue an application to vary that order. As I have said, that is a matter for the wife, and if she pursues such an application then that can be addressed on that day. In my view though, to repeat, that is not an option available to the wife given the decision I made on 9 September 2013, but again, that is a matter for her.
It is patently obvious that this matter simply cannot drift. I am not prepared to adjourn it because if it is not determined then the wife cannot pursue her application to reinstate her appeal against the orders of Judge Kelly. Thus, I have asked the wife and Ms Gough what days suit them and their counsel, in
Ms Gough’s instance it will be Ms Nelson, and the wife has indicated that it does not matter which day is chosen, because her position is that the matter cannot proceed and she will be considering her options. In those circumstances I propose to list the matter as late as I can in the week commencing 9 February 2015, to give the wife as much time as possible to consider her position, and take any action which she deems appropriate. On that basis I propose to list the matter on Thursday 12 February 2015.
The wife has indicated that she will not be able to attend the hearing in person and she requires an order permitting telephone attendance. I am comfortable with that, given that I have conducted a number of hearings on that basis.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered on
20 January 2015.
Associate:
Date: 17 February 2015
0
0
1