MERRICK & YARDLEY

[2012] FamCA 652

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MERRICK & YARDLEY [2012] FamCA 652

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Contravention -  Allegation of denigration - Meaning of denigration considered.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Merrick

RESPONDENT: Mr Yardley

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4486 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 31 July 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 31 July 2012

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. That the application for contravention filed 26 June 2012 is dismissed.

2. That the case assessment conference fixed for the property proceedings on 27 August 2012 is vacated.

3. That all outstanding applications are adjourned to 10.00 am on 3 December 2012 before me.

4. That by 4.00 pm on 17 August 2012, the husband file and serve an amended application for final orders both as to property and in the event that he wishes to alter the existing parenting orders, those orders that he proposes to seek relating to the children.

5. That by 4.00 pm on 10 September 2012, the wife file and serve a response to the property orders sought by the husband together with any proposed orders that she may seek in relation to altering the existing parenting orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Merrick & Yardley 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 4486 of 2011

Ms Merrick

Applicant

And

Mr Yardley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a contravention application was filed by Ms Merrick, who for my convenience I shall refer to as “the wife”, against Mr Yardley, who again for my convenience I shall refer to as “the husband”. 

2. There are three children in this marriage.  They are in a war zone.  I queried earlier this morning why this application which was filed on 26 June 2012 was in this Court.  Final orders were made by Turner FM on 29 February 2012.  Up until that stage, these proceedings had never been in this court.

3. The answer became evident when I found in the file an initiating application seeking property orders sought by Mr Yardley whose previous lawyers filed it on 20 June.  That application does not comply with the Court’s rules.  It does not set out with particularity what orders he is seeking.  Litigants may be excused from particularising their claim but it is hard to imagine how that could not occur where the pool of assets is as small as it is here.  I propose to vacate the hearing on 27 August 2012 because Mr Yardley has now told me that he is no longer represented by the lawyers.  I propose to list the matter later in the year when I can have a careful look at it.

4. The application before me today has 25 allegations of contravention.  Twenty five allegations in relation to orders that were only made in February gives one…