Mulcahy and Panchal and Ors

[2015] FamCA 1169

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MULCAHY & PANCHAL AND ORS [2015] FamCA 1169

FAMILY LAW – Procedural; vacating trial date as parties wish to continue an interim management for supervised parenting orders –  Adjournment indefinitely.

APPLICANT: Ms Mulcahy

RESPONDENT: Mr Panchal

2^ND RESPONDENT: B Pty Ltd

3^RD RESPONDENT: J Pty Ltd

4^TH RESPONDENT: Mr Birrell

5^TH RESPONDENT: Mr Ingliss

6^TH RESPONDENT: Mr Sullivan

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4322 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 15 December 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 15 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Stockley

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That the final hearing listed for 1 February 2016 is vacated.

2. That all outstanding applications are adjourned to 10.00am on 27 January 2017 for mention only.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mulcahy & Panchal and Ors 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 4322  of 2013

Ms Mulcahy

Applicant

And

Mr Panchal

Respondent

And

B Pty Ltd
(2^nd Respondent)

And

J Pty Ltd
(3^rd Respondent)

And

Mr Birrell
(4^th Respondent)

And

Mr Ingliss
(5^th Respondent)

And

Mr Sullivan
(6^th Respondent)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter has been brought on at the request of the parties, arising out of orders that I made some weeks ago, setting the case down for trial.  It is currently listed for 1 February 2016.  At the time I listed the matter, there were also property issues involving a third party, and those matters have now been resolved.  The only outstanding issue is the parenting dispute.

2. It is common ground that the father is seeing the child, pursuant to an interim arrangement under the supervision of the mother.  That is on the basis that the father continues to receive psychiatric treatment.  The father did not attend the last hearing when the matter was set down, and, albeit that he has indicated that he was going to attend this morning, he has not arrived.

3. It seems that the parties and, in particular, the mother do not want to incur the costs of preparation for trial, particularly as, from her perspective, things are working reasonably well.  I have indicated that for virtually three quarters of 2017, I will not be sitting in the trial division in Melbourne at all, and that would create problems for both interlocutory matters and a final trial.  I have indicated that I am not prepared to guarantee a trial in early 2017 either because that will depend upon questions about resources and, indeed, whether I am even sitting in the trial division.

4. The question then remains as to what should happen with this case.  There are two options.  One is to simply adjourn the matter into 2017 on a specific date.  The other alternative is to strike the matter out.  Ms Stockley, quite properly, says that she does not have instructions to agree to that course.  If the case fits into the first category, it will be carried by the Court.

5. The difficulty also is that the time any issue arises, if it needs judicial intervention, all of the current material that is before the Court, particularly in relation to applications, will be stale.  On that basis, fresh material will need to be prepared, in any event.

6. With some reticence, I will adjourn the matter into 2017.  To the extent that the parties desire to have any interlocutory disputes, including contraventions between now and then, they will have to take their chances in the judicial duty list.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 15 December 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  23 December 2015