PERIDES & PERIDES

[2011] FamCA 1053

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PERIDES & PERIDES [2011] FamCA 1053

FAMILY LAW – Procedural

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Perides

RESPONDENT: Mr Perides

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10627 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 20 December 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 20 December 2011

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That all outstanding applications are struck out.

2. That reasons be transcribed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Perides & Perides 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 10627 of 2009

Ms Perides

Applicant

And

Mr Perides

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application that came before me on 29 November 2011.  Upon that day, Ms Perides appeared in person; she was the applicant.  The purposes of her application that day were effectively twofold:  the first was to reinstate an application that I had struck out on 2 May this year, and the second reason was to make orders against various Commonwealth authorities so that she could ascertain the whereabouts of Mr Perides.  The substantive application before the Court was filed on 23 February 2011.  In that document, Ms Perides sought an order that her marriage to Mr Perides be declared null and void.

2. When the matter came on for hearing in May, there was no appearance for Mr Perides, and I asked Ms Perides to make some inquiries as to his whereabouts or to get some legal advice about how she was going to proceed with the case.  For reasons which remain unclear, she left the building and did not return, hence the application was struck out.  As I said on 29 November, I reinstated it.  This is an application for an annulment of the marriage.  There was not sufficient evidence before the Court in May to enable me to be satisfied that it was appropriate to make the order, and hence I suggested she make some inquiries of Mr Perides and also get some legal advice.

3. The second order she seeks in the application is for a Commonwealth information order.  Under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a Commonwealth information order can be sought in relation to the whereabouts of a child. There is no power to make an order against the relevant Commonwealth department in relation to an adult. It seems that what Ms Perides was endeavouring to do was to seek the whereabouts of her husband on the basis that he had some benefit from the Commonwealth of Australia.

4. On 29 November, the discussion about those matters occurred, and to enable Ms Perides to make some further inquiries and get legal advice, I adjourned the matter to today.  Ms Perides has been called at 10.40, and there is no appearance by or on her behalf.  She is not here to prosecute her case, and accordingly, it is struck out.  I direct the reasons be transcribed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 20 December 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  13 January 2012