Parsons and Prendergast

[2013] FamCA 1148

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARSONS & PRENDERGAST [2013] FamCA 1148

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Information order.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Parsons

RESPONDENT: Ms Prendergast

FILE NUMBER: MLC 264 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 10 July 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATE: 10 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The father’s Application in a Case filed 6 July 2012 be dismissed.

2. The matter otherwise be removed from the list of pending cases awaiting hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Parsons & Prendergast 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 264 of 2008

Mr Parsons

Applicant

And

Ms Prendergast

Respondent

REASONS

1. On 25 July 2005 Morgan J made orders pursuant to s 118 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requiring the husband to seek the Court’s leave to institute any further proceedings. On 6 July 2012 the father filed an application in a case in which he sought leave to issue an initiating application in which he sought a shared parenting arrangement for the child T born in 2000 and a location order. That application was listed before me in the Judicial Duty List on 30 July 2012.

2. On 6 August 2012 I delivered judgment and made orders that the father have leave to file an application in a case for substituted service, a location order, and/or a Commonwealth information order by 4.00 pm on 4 September 2012. The matter was otherwise adjourned for hearing in the Judicial Duty List before me on 12 September 2012. On 10 October 2012 I made a Commonwealth information order requiring Centrelink to cause a search of its records and provide any information in relation to the address of the mother to the Registrar of this Court. I otherwise adjourned the matter for further hearing before me in the Judicial Duty List on 20 December 2012. 

3. As a result of information provided by Centrelink, an attempt was made to serve the father’s application for leave to file an initiating application upon the mother. The process server was unable to effect service upon the mother at the address provided by Centrelink. The information order remains in force for a period of 12 months and requests information which Centrelink may have or which is contained in or comes into the records of Centrelink. On that basis, requests have been made to Centrelink to search their records on 17 October 2012, 9 November 2012, 7 February 2013, and 17 May 2013. On each occasion the address provided by Centrelink is the same address at which the process server, in accordance with the orders I had made, unsuccessfully attempted to effect service upon the mother. 

4. The father appeared before me at the hearing in the Judicial Duty List on 20 December 2012 when I adjourned the matter for mention before me this day.  The father has been called and does not appear today. On that basis, I propose to dismiss his Application filed on 6 July 2012. 

5. In any event, the father’s application is somewhat futile, in that, even if leave were to be granted to the father to file his initiating application, he has no way of serving that application upon the mother nor any knowledge of her whereabouts or, for that matter, the whereabouts of the child. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Macmillan delivered on 10 July 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  21 August 2013