Peters and Peters (No 2)

[2010] FamCA 857

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PETERS & PETERS (NO. 2) [2010] FamCA 857

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment

APPLICANT: Mr Peters

RESPONDENT: Ms Peters

FILE NUMBER: TVC 1541 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 27 September 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 27 September 2010

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Ryan

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That this matter is adjourned to 10.00 on 22 November 2010.

2. That leave has been granted to the Respondent to attend the hearing on 22 November 2010 by electronic communication.

Notation:

A:The Respondent will be provided with telephone details prior to the hearing on 22 November 2010.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Peters & Peters is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER:  TVC 1541 of 2007

MR PETERS

Applicant

And

MS PETERS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  

1. An Application in a Case filed on 9 September 2010 came before the Court on 27 September 2010 supported by an Affidavit of the husband’s solicitor, Moira Cynthia Ryan, sworn 7 September 2010 and filed on 9 September 2010.

2. The Application is in relation to taking certain steps to ensure that fresh Certificates of Title issue for assets owned by the parties in Australia but owned by their superannuation fund and there are some further steps to be taken to ensure that the ownership of those assets is regularised.  Before that can happen fresh Certificates of Title must issue because those documents are lost to the parties.

3. The respondent wife made an Application on 24 September 2010 to attend by electronic communication for this matter.  That Application was granted and the respondent was asked to ring in through the Genesys system at 11.00 am today.  I am confident that the wife made every attempt to telephone but that there were technical difficulties over the period of more than one hour and it has been impossible for the wife to ring or for the Court to make contact with her through the Genesys system and through her own personal phone number. 

4. Unfortunately, this means that the matter has had to be adjourned to 10.00 am on 22 November 2010.  On that occasion Ms Ryan, solicitor for the applicant husband, foreshadows that should there be similar difficulties such that the matter could again not be heard she would make an application for the orders in relation to the Certificates of Title to be made ex parte for the reasons outlined above:  that it relates to the preservation of assets for the benefit of both the parties.

5. I note that the wife had also made an urgent Application supported by an Affidavit which was also to be returnable before the court today.  That matter cannot be dealt with today and it may be dealt with on the next occasion also.  However, the Application that brought the proceedings before the court today was that of the husband filed on 24 September 2010 and there was some urgency or at least immediacy about having that application dealt with.

6. Ms Ryan seeks costs on behalf of her client and I reserve that costs application to the next occasion.  The costs application relates to the nature of the application itself and not to the technical difficulties that the court has experienced today.

I certify that the preceding six paragraphs (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 27 September 2010.

Associate:     

Date:              27 September 2010