Podopoulos and Albertinni

[2008] FamCA 869

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PODOPOULOS & ALBERTINNI [2008] FamCA 869

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Case management

APPLICANT: Mr Podopoulos

RESPONDENT: Ms Albertinni

FILE NUMBER: ADC 380 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 8 August 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 8 August 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms T Collins

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Norman Waterhouse Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr G Howe

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Howe Martin & Associates

ORDERS

1. That paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Application in a Case filed by the wife on 25 July 2008 be dismissed.

2. That further consideration of paragraph 3 of the Application in a Case filed by the wife on 25 July 2008 be adjourned to 10:00am on 13 August 2008 before Justice Burr.

3. That paragraph 1 of the Response filed by the husband on 5 August 2008 be dismissed.

4. That paragraph 3 of the Response filed by the husband on 5 August 2008 insofar as it relates to the Application in a Case filed by the wife on 25 July 2008 be adjourned to 10:00am on 13 August 2008 before Justice Burr.

5. That the listing on 22 September 2008 of the Application Alleging Contravention filed by the husband on 24 June 2008 be vacated.

6. That the Application Alleging Contravention filed by the husband on 24 June 2008 be listed for hearing not before 10:00am on 9 October 2008 before Justice Dawe.

7. That the Application Alleging Contravention filed by the wife on 25 July 2008, paragraph 2 of the Response filed by the husband on 5 August 2008 and paragraph 3 of the said Response in so far as he seeks costs be adjourned to not before 10:00am on 9 October 2008 before Justice Dawe.

8. That the wife file and serve responding documents to the Application in a Case filed by the husband on 6 August 2008 within twenty-eight [28] days.

9. That further consideration of the Application in a Case filed by the husband on 6 August 2008 be adjourned to 9:15am on 9 October 2008 before Justice Dawe.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC  380 of 2007

MR PODOPOULOS

Applicant

And

MS ALBERTINNI

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. In this matter there are a number of applications before me today.  Not necessarily in chronological order, there is the wife's Application in a Case filed on 25 July 2008.  I am told by Mr Howe that his client is not pursuing that application and it can be dismissed.  However, there are issues of costs arising from that application.

2. The husband filed a Response to that application on 5 August.  In that response he sought a dismissal of the wife's application, and that the wife pay the husband's costs of and incidental to that application.

3. Coincidentally, Burr J, who heard an earlier application of the husband, namely, an Application filed on 24 June, has adjourned an issue of costs in relation to that application to 13 August 2008.  It is suggested, and I agree, that the issue of costs in relation to the wife's Application of 25 July should be adjourned to that same date.

4. Next, there is the wife's Application alleging Contravention filed on 25 July 2008.  That is proceeding at this stage.  The husband in his Response of 5 August 2008 also responds to that application, and he seeks its dismissal and he seeks costs in relation to it.  With that application and response, I propose to list that matter for hearing on 9 October 2008 before Dawe J, not before 10:00am.

5. Thirdly, the husband has now filed an Application in a Case looking to deal with, primarily, school holiday time, given that an earlier order of this court did not go beyond the July school holidays.  The wife has not had an opportunity yet to file answering documents to that application, and at this stage there are elements of that application which are opposed, although I am pleased to be told that the parties have at least agreed what is to happen in the September-October school holidays.

6. I will give the wife the opportunity to file answering documents, and then that application and her response can also be adjourned and listed on that same date; namely 9 October, but at 9.15am before Dawe J.

7. On 24 June 2008 the husband filed an Application alleging Contravention.  That application has been listed on 22 September 2008, but the husband is not available that day.  He is in the transport industry and is away.  I am also told that the wife is not available.  She is in health services and is working on that particular date.  Thus the parties make a joint request to vacate that listing, and because the issue is one and the same as the Application allegation contravention which I have just dealt with, it is convenient to list them together.  I propose to adjourn that application to be heard by Dawe J also on 9 October 2008.

I certify that the preceding 7 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered 8 August 2008.

Associate