Pond and Thurga and Ors (No 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

POND & THURGA AND ORS (NO. 2) [2009] FamCA 1241

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – adjournment of proceedings – principles in Aon applied – lack of adequate explanation for delay – issue of prejudice to party seeking adjournment – application dismissed

The State of Queensland v JL Holdings (1997) 141 ALR 353
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited & Australian National University (2009) 258 ALR 14

Family Law Rules 2004 r.15

APPLICANT: Ms Pond

FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Thurga

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr Hedger

THIRD RESPONDENT: B Pty Ltd

FOURTH RESPONDENT: X & T Pty Ltd

FIFTH RESPONDENT: S Pty Ltd

SIXTH RESPONDENT: Ms X Thurga

SEVENTH RESPONDENT: Mr Bradbury

FILE NUMBER: SYF 3665 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 2 December 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: The Hon. Justice Rose

HEARING DATE: 2 December 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:	D A Harris
SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT:	Central Coast Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:	J Costigan
SOLICITORS FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:	York Family Law
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:	G Craddock SC
SOLICITORS FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:
COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD, FOURTH AND SEVENTH RESPONDENTS:	D Sulan
SOLICITORS FOR THE THIRD, FOURTH AND SEVENTH RESPONDENTS:	Clayton Utz
SIXTH RESPONDENT:	In person

Orders

1. That the Application in a Case filed in Court today on behalf of the second respondent is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER:  SYF3665 of 2005

MS POND

Applicant

And

MR THURGA

First Respondent

And

MR HEDGER

Second Respondent

And

B PTY LTD

Third Respondent

And

X & T PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

And

S PTY LTD

Fifth Respondent

And

MS X THURGA

Sixth Respondent

And

MR BRADBURY

Seventh Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. By an Application in a Case filed in Court today the second respondent seeks an order inter alia that the hearing of the part-heard proceedings due to resume before me on 7 December 2009 and to continue if necessary to 11 December 2009 be vacated.  In addition, orders were sought that pleadings be filed and served and that the second respondent be granted leave to file and serve what is described as “any expert report” and other affidavit material following the pleadings having closed.

2. In relation to the question of a further expert report, I briefly observe that since 2004, the Family Law Rules 2004 have provided for there to be single experts on the provisions set out in those Rules and that a party may seek leave to call a further expert on the grounds set out in r.15.

3. Consequently, the order that is sought in terms of “any expert”, on the face of it, is doomed to failure.

4. However, returning to the principal application and that is that the part-heard proceedings be adjourned, that application is opposed by all other parties with the exception of…