Peddar and Vina

[2013] FamCA 258

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PEDDAR & VINA [2013] FamCA 258

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Recusal from hearing matter further – transfer of proceedings to Federal Circuit Court

APPLICANT: Ms Vina

RESPONDENT: Mr Peddar

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8853 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 19 April 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 19 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ex-parte

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ex-parte

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.The proceedings is transferred to the Federal Circuit Court at Adelaide Registry on a date to be fixed by that Court.

2.I disqualify myself from any further hearing of this matter.

2.The reasons for judgment this day be transcribed and when settled a copy be placed on the Court file and made available to the parties.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Peddar & Vina 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 8853 of 2007

Ms Vina

Applicant

And

Mr Peddar

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX-TEMPORE

1. This matter comes before me having been transferred from the Federal Circuit Court (as it now is) on 26 February 2013.  The proceedings are the mother’s application filed in that Court on 13 February 2013. 

2. The matter was transferred to this Court and with a request that it be brought to my attention because of my previous extensive involvement in the matter.

3. The respondent father has not been served.  Accordingly this hearing is ex-parte.  I agree that my previous involvement has been extensive.  It involved an application under the 1980 Hague Convention for access and then the mother wrongfully retained the children in Sweden during the access visit which was ordered.  The children were unlocatable for some months but were eventually returned to Australia, also pursuant to the 1980 Convention and the involvement of police in both jurisdictions, Interpol and numerous officers of the respective central authorities and several orders by me.

4. Given my previous involvement, I am satisfied that I can bring neither an impartial nor open mind to the matter.  It is inappropriate that the matter remain in my docket. 

5. The mother is in South Australia.  It is not apparent where the father might be, let alone the children F born in April 1997 and E born in April 1999.  It is appropriate to return the matter to the forum which is most conveniently located to the mother which is in Adelaide.  There is no reason, in my mind, why this matter should be in the Family Court of Australia.  I conclude that it is preferable to return the matter to the Federal Circuit Court now rather than to the Adelaide Registry of this Court from whence it is entirely possible the matter would be transferred back to the trial court in any event. 

6. Finally, I recuse myself from further dealing with the matter.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 19 April 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  22 April 2013