Nghiem and Truong and Ors

[2015] FamCA 2

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NGHIEM & TRUONG AND ORS [2015] FamCA 2

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Orders to prepare for trial

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms S Nghiem

RESPONDENT: Ms Truong

2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS: Ms Luong & Mr D Nghiem

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4291 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 7 January 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 7 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Colla

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Kennedy Partners

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Korosidis

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Korosidis Lawyers

Orders

1. That the hearing on 27 January 2015 is vacated.

2. That all extant applications and responses for final orders are struck out of the list of cases to be relisted upon certification to the registrar by the respective parties that:

   (a)       they are ready for a final hearing; and

   (b)       all directions for filing of material have been complied with,

   and the allocation of the matter then for a final hearing be a matter for the case management judge (Bennett J).

3. That both parties have liberty to apply to the case management judge:

   (a)if either asserts that the other party is not making endeavours to get ready for trial; or

   (b)there are interlocutory orders necessary.

   Reserve the costs of both parties this day.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

1. That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nghiem & Truong 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 4291 of 2011

Mr S Nghiem

Applicant

And

Ms Truong

Respondent

And

Ms Luong & Mr D Nghiem
2^nd and 3^rd Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a property dispute between the applicant and the respondent who were found by a declaration of the court, to have lived in a de facto relationship.  Subsequent to that declaration being made after a lengthy contested hearing, little was done by the parties to get ready for trial until the more recent involvement of the lawyers on the record.

2. In September 2014, I made orders for a trial to commence on 27 January 2015 thus giving the parties and their practitioners the best part of four months to undertake valuations and discovery.  In the intervening period, further interlocutory orders were made of an injunctive nature relating to insolvency proceedings.

3. Material was filed in compliance with the orders to get ready for trial but it is now asserted by both parties that discovery is lacking. 

4. After discussion, it is clear the matter is not ready for trial and both parties agree.  Accordingly, over opposition from the applicant, this matter should not be relisted until both parties certify that it is ready for trial.  Orders were made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 7 January 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  7 January 2015