Petridis & Petridis (No. 2)
[2021] FamCA 204
•29 March 2021
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Petridis & Petridis (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 204
File number(s): HBC 133 of 2018 Judgment of: MCCLELLAND DCJ Date of judgment: 29 March 2021 Catchwords: FAMLY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to intervene –Where the bankrupt husband has made an oral application for leave to make submissions pursuant to s 79(12) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the husband has previously abused leave granted for him to intervene with the parties’ consent to then make inappropriate submissions – Application dismissed Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s. 79(12) Number of paragraphs: 4 Date of hearing: 30 March 2021 Place: Sydney by video web conference Counsel for the Applicant: Appearing in person by telephone Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr McKenna of Ogilvie Jennings Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr F Petridis in person by telephone Counsel for the Third Respondent: Mr F Petridis in person by telephone Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Ms O’Farrell of Dobson Mitchell Allport Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: Mr Foster of Murdoch Clarke Counsel for the Sixth Respondent: Appearing in person by telephone
HBC 133 of 2018 BETWEEN: MR PETRIDIS
Applicant
AND: MS PETRIDIS
First Respondent
L PTY LTD (A.C.N. …)
Second Respondent
M PTY LTD (A.C.N. …) (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Petridis & Petridis has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
McClelland DCJ:
These proceedings concern an oral Application made by Mr Petridis (“the husband”), the First Respondent husband in the substantive proceedings concerning an Application for final property orders between Ms Petridis (“the wife”), L Pty Ltd, M Pty Ltd, Mr Tamson, Trustee in Bankruptcy for the husband (“the Trustee”), K Council and Mr F Petridis. In this matter, the husband has appeared electronically by telephone to seek leave to intervene in these proceedings, which concern an urgent Application in a Case filed 29 March 2021 by the Trustee, for the purpose of making a submission to the Court in this directions hearing. Pursuant to s 79(12) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), the husband, as the bankrupt party to the marriage, in circumstances where the Trustee is a party to the proceedings, is not entitled to make a submission to the Court, except with the leave of the Court.
On each and every occasion that this matter has been before me, that is, as the trial judge responsible for the trial management of this matter and, ultimately, hearing the matter on a final basis, the husband has been given leave for the purpose of making limited submissions, in respect to the issue immediately before the Court on those respective occasions. On each of those occasions that the husband has appeared before the Court, with the greatest respect to him, his submissions have been singularly unhelpful. They have not focused on the issues before the Court, rather, they have been focused upon litigation that is occurring outside this Court’s jurisdiction, in which he is seeking to set aside or annul the bankruptcy that has been declared against him.
Further, the submissions that the husband has made have, on occasions, been scandalous. That is, in using that expression, the husband has used the absolute privilege that a litigant has in this Court, or in any court of law for that matter, to make defamatory imputations against other persons, most specifically the Trustee. In those circumstances, the husband has abused the courtesy extended to him by those parties who have consented to his appearance on those occasions and he has also abused the processes of the Court.
In those circumstances, I decline the husband’s Application for leave to intervene in these proceedings.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice McClelland. Associate:
Dated: 15 April 2021
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
HBC 133 of 2018 Respondents
Fourth Respondent:
MR TAMSON
Fifth Respondent:
K COUNCIL
Sixth Respondent:
MR F PETRIDIS
0
1