PRENDERGAST & PARSONS

[2015] FamCA 624

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRENDERGAST & PARSONS [2015] FamCA 624

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where a Commonwealth information order has previously been made – where the applicant did not appear.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Prendergast

RESPONDENT: Ms Parsons

FILE NUMBER: MLC 264 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 27 January 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATE: 27 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Parsons & Prendergast 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 264 of 2008

Mr Prendergast

Applicant

And

Ms Parsons

Respondent

REASONS

1. On 6 July 2012, the father in this matter filed an Application in a Case seeking leave to initiate proceedings.  On 4 September 2012, he filed a further Application in a Case seeking a location order or a Commonwealth information order.  On 10 October 2012, I made a Commonwealth information order requiring Centrelink to cause a search of its records and provide any information in relation to the address of the mother to the Registrar of this Court, and otherwise adjourned the matter for further hearing before me in the Judicial Duty List on 20 December 2012. 

2. As a result of information provided by Centrelink, an attempt was made to serve the father’s application for leave to file an Initiating Application upon the mother.  The process server was unable to effect service upon the mother at the address provided by Centrelink.  The information order remains in force for a period of 12 months and requests information which Centrelink may have or which is contained in or comes into the records of Centrelink.  On that basis, requests were made to Centrelink to search their records on 17 October 2012, 9 November 2012, 7 February 2013 and 17 May 2013. 

3. On each occasion, the address provided by Centrelink was the same as the address at which the process server had attempted unsuccessfully to serve the documents upon the mother.  That information was made available – not the address, but the fact that service had been unsuccessful – to the father at the hearing before me in the Judicial Duty List on 20 December 2012.  The matter was adjourned for further mention before me on 10 July 2013 and, on that date, as the father failed to appear, I dismissed his application. 

4. On 29 July 2013, the father filed a further application, and it became clear at the first return date of that application that the mother’s year of birth in the original Commonwealth information order had been incorrect.  On that basis, the father withdrew his application and the original Commonwealth Information order was amended and served upon Centrelink, as a result of which Centrelink advised that they had another address at which an attempt might be made to serve the documents upon the mother. 

5. On 28 November 2014, a letter was forwarded to the father at the address he had listed as his address for service, advising him that the matter would be listed for mention this day.  The father has been called and there is no appearance.  As there are no applications presently outstanding, the matter should be removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Macmillan delivered on 27 January 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  29 January 2015