Narkis and Narkis

[2017] FamCA 118

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NARKIS & NARKIS [2017] FamCA 118

FAMILY LAW – ADJOURNMENT – necessitated by absence of respondent.

APPLICANT: Mr Narkis

RESPONDENT: Ms Narkis

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 210 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 28 February 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 28 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Dixon QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Cantwell Family Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT: No Appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Buchanan

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Trapski Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That the proceedings be adjourned to 10.00am on 1 March 2017.

2. That if the Ms Narkis is not present at 10.000am as ordered and fails to produce evidence as to why she has been absent today, Mr Narkis has leave to make an application to proceed on an undefended basis.

3. That this order be expedited.

4. That the order be served by the court by email to the address shown on the email to my Associate this day.

5. That the reasons be transcribed and be made available in due course.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Narkis & Narkis (No 2) 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 210 of 2014

Mr Narkis

Applicant

And

Ms Narkis

Respondent

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. It is now 2.35 pm on the second day of this parenting and property dispute.  Ms Narkis who is the respondent did not appear this morning, but sent an email at 9.42 am to my associate indicating that she was “back at hospital”.  Leaving aside the rest of the email relating to her unhappiness with what had occurred in the Court yesterday, she says that her pain is still existing and that she had gone to the hospital to do something about it.  The email went on to say that her phone may or may not be on today because she just did not know who she would be seeing as the treating professional. 

2. I have been told that the independent children's lawyer has made an inquiry to the phone of Ms Narkis and there has been no response.  I am told by senior counsel for Mr Narkis that inquiries that he could make would be pointless, having regard to the history of this particular matter. 

3. This is the second day of these proceedings and we have been unable to start because of the incapacity of Ms Narkis.  The extent of that incapacity is the problem here because I do not know whether or not she can provide any evidence to show that she is incapable of running the case. 

4. On the application of Mr Narkis, I propose to adjourn the proceedings to 10 am tomorrow morning and indicate that if Ms Narkis is not present, producing evidence as to why she has been incapacitated today, then Mr Narkis has leave to make an application to proceed on an undefended basis.  Because there is some uncertainty about whether Ms Narkis will respond to the practitioners for Mr Narkis or, indeed, the independent children's lawyer with whom she appears to be unhappy, I think it is sensible that the Court send the order, once authenticated, to the email address that she provided to the Court earlier this morning.  This case has to ultimately come to a conclusion at some stage, and as it is now in its third or fourth year, it is time to do something about it. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 28 February 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  3 March 2017