Pourdis and Pourdis (No. 5)

[2012] FamCA 845

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

POURDIS & POURDIS (NO. 5) [2012] FamCA 845

FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of whether the trial should be adjourned part heard – where the husband was awaiting a trial for significant criminal charges – where the Court would benefit from further information in relation to other matters – where the Court was concerned about the delay in the matter however held that it was appropriate for the matter to be adjourned – orders that the matter be adjourned.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Pourdis

RESPONDENT: Mr Pourdis

INTERVENOR: Bank of Queensland

FILE NUMBER: DNC 552 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 25 September 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Darwin

PLACE HEARD: Darwin

JUDGMENT OF: Dawe J

HEARING DATE: 25 September 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Farmer

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Withnalls Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Bowen

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Bowen Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE BANK OF

QUEENSLAND:

Ms Dee

SOLICITOR FOR THE BANK OF

QUEENSLAND:

Cooper Grace & Ward

Orders

1. The final settlement proceedings are adjourned part heard commencing at 2.15 pm on Tuesday 22 January 2013 and continuing on Wednesday 23 January and Thursday 24 January 2013 before the Honourable Justice Dawe sitting in the Darwin Registry.

1. Any evidence upon which any party wishes to rely as affidavit of evidence-in-chief is to be filed and served by 14 December 2012 (to include information from the husband in relation to the liquidation of P Pty Ltd and the information from the Bank of Queensland receivers of the various entities referred to).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Pourdis & Pourdis (No. 5) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN

FILE NUMBER: DNC 552 of 2010

Ms Pourdis

Applicant

And

Mr Pourdis

Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In relation to the completion of the property settlement proceedings which were concluded but had now been reopened, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to adjourn them for further evidence to be received particularly in relation to the liquidators report into the winding up of P Pty Ltd, if that report can be received promptly.

2. The other reason is the possible impact upon the husband’s financial circumstances and his earning capacity and the possibility of any contribution to the care and welfare of the family.  It is noted that the husband has been released on bail.  On the face of it there appears to be a risk of the husband, if convicted, facing significant penalty by way of prison in relation to charges which would seriously impact upon his capacity to provide assistance to the wife and children. 

3. That would be a factor which the Court would need to take into account thereby reducing any prospect that the wife may have of assistance from the husband in relation to the children’s support.

4. I am concerned however about the length of time this matter has taken to be completed and the delays and costs both financially and in other ways upon the parties and associated entities. 

5. I am told that the husband is now not being sentenced in relation to the significant charges but is in fact contesting at least one of the charges and that the matter has been set for a five day trial in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory commencing in October 2012. 

6. He may not immediately be sentenced if found guilty, but if found not guilty that information could be provided to the Court immediately. 

7. It was suggested that the liquidator’s report could take approximately one month to six weeks to be provided.  I would therefore be looking at bringing the matter back before the Court at a time when not only the criminal proceedings have been completed, but when the liquidator’s report may be available.

8. The Court does not have time available in the immediate period thereafter to relist the matter particularly if it will require evidence to be heard and witnesses to be cross-examined.  I will stand the matter down briefly in a moment to make some inquiries as to the availability to set aside time to hear this matter if necessary by telephone or video link in late November, or mid to late November. 

9. The other matters which remain to be dealt with today are the contempt and contravention proceedings.  Previously counsel have indicated there is no objection to me continuing to hear those matters whilst I am reserved on the property settlement proceedings.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dawe delivered on 25 September 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  5 October 2012