Mumford and Mumford

[2008] FamCA 692

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MUMFORD & MUMFORD [2008] FamCA 692

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application – Dismissal or Striking Out

APPELLANT: MR MUMFORD

RESPONDENT: MS MUMFORD

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: MARY ALLEN

FILE NUMBER: DNC 288 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 13 June 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Darwin

PLACE HEARD: Darwin

JUDGMENT OF: STRICKLAND J

HEARING DATE: 13 June 2008

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms McLaren

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Roennfeldt

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Allen

Orders

(1)    That the Application in a Case filed by the husband on 28 March 2008 and the Response filed by the wife on 2 May 2008 be dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.

1. That the order made on 14 April 2008 appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.

2. That the Application in a Case filed by the husband on 6 February 2008 seeking interim orders for property settlement be listed for hearing at 9:00am on 18 June 2008.

3. That in relation to the application referred to in paragraph (3) herein the wife file and serve any further affidavit material upon which she intends to rely by 4:00pm on 17 June 2008.

4. That these proceedings be removed from the Court's Magellan Project and proceed along the normal case management pathway.

5. That paragraph 6 of the order made on 10 June 2008 be discharged as on and from 4:00pm on 16 June 2008.

6. That the husband have liberty to file any further affidavit material upon which he intends to rely for the purpose of the application referred to in paragraph (3) herein by 4:00pm on 17 June 2008.

7. That during the period of the adjournment to 18 June 2008 the wife be restrained and an injunction is granted restraining her from selling, transferring, encumbering or otherwise alienating the property described in paragraph 1 of the application referred to in paragraph (3) herein.

8. That further consideration of this matter generally be adjourned to 9:00am on 18 June 2008.

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

THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN

File Number: DNC 288 of 2007

MR MUMFORD

Appellant

And

MS MUMFORD

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. I have before me an Application in a Case filed by the father on 28 March 2008 seeking interim orders in relation to the children.

2. The mother filed a Response to that application on 2 May 2008.

3. The application was adjourned to enable the Family Consultant to interview the children and provide a report as to their views.  That has occurred and I now have before me a report from the Family Consultant.

4. The position though is that through his counsel, the father has indicated he is not pursuing his application and I propose therefore to dismiss it.

5. Ms Roennfeldt for the mother has indicated that her client does not pursue any orders in relation to the children, either on an interim basis or a final basis, and thus I will dismiss the mother's response as well.

6. The effect of that is that there is no longer a need for the Independent Children's Lawyer and I therefore propose to discharge the order appointing the Independent Children's Lawyer.

7. That then led to a discussion as to the fate of certain subpoenaed documents which were primarily subpoenaed in relation to the children’ issues.  Prima facie, it seems that those documents are not relevant to any application that is left in this court.  Ms Roennfeldt though does want the opportunity to inspect those documents in accordance with my order and before they are released and returned to the Director of Public Prosecutions, I am satisfied to enable that to occur.

8. Separate to that, there is still an ongoing Application for property settlement, and there is an Application in a Case filed by the father on 21 May 2007 which has not been dealt with.  That is an application where the father seeks an injunction restraining the wife from selling the property.  The wife is as I understand it, looking to sell that property, but Ms Roennfeldt wants the opportunity to put further material on the file in opposition to that injunction, and thus I propose to list that matter on Wednesday of next week.

9. It will be convenient at that time to also revisit the issue of the subpoenaed documents, if Ms Roennfeldt is able to inspect them before then.

10. In terms of the application for property settlement itself, Ms Roennfeldt has confirmed that that needs to be listed before a Registrar for a case assessment conference and that can take place, presumably, in the Registrar's next circuit which is in August.

11. The other comment, just to confirm, is that given what has happened with the children's issues, this matter needs to be removed from the Magellan list.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland

Associate: …

Date:  13 June 2008