Pitte and Pitte (No. 2)

[2008] FamCA 1175

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PITTE & PITTE (NO. 2) [2008] FamCA 1175

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Extension of time – Costs application refused

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Pitte

RESPONDENT: Ms Pitte

FILE NUMBER: MLF 1141 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 24 December 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 24 December 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Geron

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mark Shenken

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Litigant in person

Orders

1. That paragraph 6 of the orders made on 18 November 2008 be varied to extend the time for compliance to 30 January 2009.

2. That paragraph 2 of the orders made on 19 August 2008 be varied to extend the time for compliance by the wife to 6 February 2009 at 4.00pm.

3. That paragraph 3 of the orders made on 19 August 2008 be varied to extend the time for compliance by the husband to 13 February 2009 at 4.00pm.

4. That the husband’s cost application is refused.

5. The wife have leave to respond to any submissions by the husband by filing such submissions no later than 4.00pm on 18 February 2009.

6. That the application in a case be otherwise dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 12863 of 2007

MR PITTE

Applicant

And

MS PITTE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a matter in which I am asked to extend the time for filing a report which on one view should have been prepared many months ago.  As a result of the conclusion of the trial, the judgment has been delayed because the parties have not filed their submissions.  This is the second time I have extended the time.  The time being extended now is because of the fact that the report has not been completed.

2. It seems that there is common ground that it was only last Friday that the chartered accountant obtained material from the Taxation Office and, with the festive season, he says that he wants until 30 January to provide the report.  In turn, the parties cannot prepare their final submissions until they get that report.

3. On that basis, the only logical conclusion is to allow the report to be filed and for the parties to have a short period of time to prepare their submissions.  In reality, it seems to me that it is the figures that they need from the report more than anything else, so their submissions should be well and truly prepared by now.  I propose to make orders extending the times. 

4. The husband also now seeks an order for costs thrown away, as having to have the matter listed for hearing today.  The quantum of the costs sought was $450.

5. The provisions of s 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) govern the question of costs in these proceedings. The starting point is that the Act requires that each party bears their own costs, unless there are circumstances that justify the court from departing from that principle. Having regard to the fact that both parties needed the report and there may have been another way much simpler than this of getting the extension of time, it seems to me, particularly with the wife being unrepresented, that it is not appropriate for me to make an order for costs.

I certify that the preceding Five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  8 January 2008