PENCIOUS & SEARLE

[2015] FamCA 608

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PENCIOUS & SEARLE [2015] FamCA 608

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUCTION – Oral application by the husband to restrain counsel for the wife from acting on her behalf – where the husband alleges breach of confidentiality by counsel for the wife but also seeks to rely upon evidence denying the validity of that alleged confidential information – no basis for the husband’s application – application to restrain counsel for the wife from acting on her behalf dismissed.

APPLICANT: Mr Pencious

RESPONDENT: Ms Searle

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11069 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 22 May 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATE: 22 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Guthry

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Tasiopoulos Lambros & Co

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. The husband’s oral application seeking an injunction restraining Mr Woods of Counsel from appearing on behalf of the wife be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Pencious & Searle 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 11069 of 2008

Mr Pencious

Applicant

And

Ms Searle

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was first listed for hearing in the Judicial Duty List on 5 May 2015. The proceedings before the Court on that date were the husband’s Application in a Case filed 24 March 2015 in which he sought orders for a stay of the orders of Cronin J made 5 April 2012 and orders with respect to the assessment of costs pursuant to those orders. The order for costs made by Cronin J on 5 April 2012 was the subject of proceedings before Strickland J in the Appeals Division of the Court which also include the husband’s Application in an Appeal in which he is seeking an extension of time to appeal against the order made by Cronin J on 5 April 2012. It is that order that is the subject of the husband’s Application in a Case filed 24 March 2014. As referred to in my reasons delivered this day neither party opposed the adjournment of the husband’s Application in a Case pending the hearing before Strickland J the following day.

2. The husband’s Applications in an Appeal have now been heard by Strickland J and judgment has been reserved. Although the husband now seeks to proceed with his Application in a Case filed 24 March 2014, in my view the hearing of his application should await Strickland J’s decision as it relates to the orders the subject of those proceedings. It is the wife’s case that the husband’s Application in a Case should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

3. At the commencement of the proceedings before me on 5 May 2015 the husband made an oral application to have Mr Woods of Counsel, who appeared on behalf of the wife that day,…