O’Hara and Quirk

[2013] FamCA 801

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

O’HARA & QUIRK [2013] FamCA 801

FAMILY LAW – Application not prosecuted; struck out.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr O’Hara

RESPONDENT: Ms Quirk

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4942 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 3 October 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 3 October 2013

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That all applications of the parties are struck out.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym  O’ Hara & Quirk 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 4942 of 2013

Mr O’Hara

Applicant

And

Ms Quirk

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is the matter of O’Hara and Quirk in the judicial duty list.  An application was filed by the applicant, who asserted that his de facto relationship had come to an end and he sought property orders.  That application was filed on his behalf by a firm of lawyers in Melbourne.  The matter was listed for hearing on 5 August 2013 before a registrar.  The respondent to the application went to lawyers, who filed a Notice of Address for Service on her behalf on 24 June 2013 but filed no other documents. 

2. When the matter came on for hearing before the Registrar on 5 August 2013, it was obvious from the record that there were some problems about discovery but there was also a disputed issue that was beyond the power of the registrar.  Consequently, the Registrar adjourned the matter to today’s Judicial Duty List. 

3. As is now well known, the primary sitting judge has his associate send out an email the day or so before the hearing to find out whether the parties are still requiring some judicial time.  The solicitor for the applicant responded at 9.38 pm on 1 October with:

   This matter has been settled.  Anyway, I’m in hospital and unable to attend.

4. I presume that means that the Court is not required.  The respondent, who has filed no material other than a Notice of Address for Service, had her solicitor respond as follows:

   We no longer act for the respondent and I am therefore unable to respond to your email.  Kind regards.

5. I am not often heard in this Court to criticise the members of the legal profession but that is appalling. 

6. The matter is struck out.  In the matter of O’Hara and Quirk, all applications are struck out.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 3 October 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  16 October 2013