Norris and Matthews

[2018] FamCA 802

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORRIS & MATTHEWS [2018] FamCA 802

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by the wife to transfer proceedings from the Newcastle Registry to the Melbourne Registry – Where application is opposed by the husband despite living in Melbourne – Where the wife lives in New Zealand – Where the wife will have to travel to Australia regardless of whichever registry the matter is heard – Where the husband’s preference to maintain his current legal representatives in Newcastle is greater than the inconvenience of travelling to Newcastle – Where the matter will likely be brought to conclusion in Newcastle sooner – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act (Cth) 1975

APPLICANT: Ms Norris

RESPONDENT: Mr Matthews

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER: NCC 2226 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 5 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 2 August 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Not Applicable

THE APPLICANT: Representing herself

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Carty

THE RESPONDENT: Oliver Campbell Heslop Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Not Applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Not Applicable

Orders

1. The Application in a Case (Change of Venue) filed by the wife on 13 June 2018 is dismissed.

2. That the Response to an Application in a Case filed by the husband on 3 July 2018 is dismissed.

3. The costs of the husband are reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Norris & Matthews has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC 2226 of 2015

Ms Norris

Applicant

And

Mr Matthews

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 13 June 2018, the wife filed an Application in a Case.  The order for determination is Order 2, that the proceedings be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of this Court.

2. Order 1 no longer required determination.  His Honour Austin J disqualified himself from further hearing applications in these proceedings.

3. The application for transfer to Melbourne is opposed by the husband.

4. The husband has recently moved with the parties’ child to live in Melbourne.  Had he been the applicant for transfer, the matter may have been treated differently.

5. The wife lives in New Zealand and, on most occasions of Court events, attends by phone.  In whichever registry on the Eastern Seaboard the matter is heard in future the wife will be required to travel to Australia.  Otherwise, she is unaffected.

6. The main reason of the wife for application for transfer to Melbourne appears to be her belief   that the parties’ daughter would be able to stay with the mother in Melbourne when the mother travelled to that city for Court events.[1] 

   [1] Affidavit of the wife filed 25/07/2018, par 40

7. There are final parenting orders in place.  The parties can agree to vary them at any time in any way.  If there is no agreement, the orders must be complied with.  There is no basis at all for asserting that a change of venue must inevitably lead to different arrangements for the child.

8. The other submission of the wife was irrelevant to the application, namely, the opinion of the wife that the husband should obtain new legal representatives.  Indeed, the opposition of the husband to the application was that retention of his current legal advisers, solicitors and counsel meant more to him than the inconvenience of travelling from Melbourne to Newcastle for Court events.

9. Further, the husband had made inquiries about waiting times for final hearing of property matters.[2]

   [2] Affidavit of the husband filed 4/07/2018, annexures A and B

10. The matter will likely be brought to conclusion no later in Newcastle than in Melbourne, and perhaps sooner on the indications given.

11. On that basis, I decline the application for transfer and dismiss the application.

12. Costs are reserved.

13. Orders are made accordingly.

Evidence

1. The documents relied on in this application are as follows:

For the wife:

a)     Application in a Case filed 13/06/2018;

b)    Affidavit of the wife filed 13/06/2018;

c)   Affidavit of the wife filed 25/07/2018;

For the husband:

d)   Response to an Application in a Case filed 3/07/2018;

e)   Affidavit of the husband filed 4/07/2018 with annexures A and B.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 5 October 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  5 October 2018