Pritt and Tumit

[2007] FamCA 895

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRITT & TUMIT [2007] FamCA 895

FAMILY LAW – SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS –for want of prosecution 

APPLICANT: MR PRITT

RESPONDENT: MS TUMIT

FILE NUMBER: NCF 680 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 6 August 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: MULLANE J

HEARING DATE: 6 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: Mr Pritt

THE RESPONDENT: Ms Tumit

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Sharon Moore, Solicitor

Orders

1. Any outstanding applications are dismissed for want of prosecution.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice Mullane delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Pritt & Tumit .

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCF 680  of 2006

MR PRITT

Applicant

And

MS TUMIT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings were before the Judicial Registrar on 9 May 2007.  I think both parties appeared by telephone on that occasion.  The Judicial Registrar discharged the order appointing an Independent Children's Lawyer for the children.  He made an order that the parents attend a further child dispute conference through the Child Dispute Services of the Court, and adjourned the matter to the list of matters waiting for an appointment for a first day in the LAT system.

2. On 27 April 2007, the solicitor for the father ceased to act.  It was the father's application filed on 16 April 2007 that sought the removal of the independent lawyer for the children.  The application of the independent lawyer for the children on 9 May 2007 for the parties to pay part of the costs of the independent lawyer was refused and dismissed.

3. The Registry wrote to the parties on 11 July 2007 notifying them of the listing today at 11 am.  The letter explained what happened on 9 May 2007 and that the matter was now ready for allocation of a hearing in a less adversarial trial system, but there would not have been a trial if there had been a settlement between the parties.  It noted that the family consultant in a memorandum had advised that the parties had resolved the issues between them at the child dispute conference on 1 June 2007. 

4. The letter advised the parties that if either of them wished to attend by telephone today he or she would need to complete a form of request, which was enclosed.  Similarly, if either party wished to discontinue the proceedings they would need to file a Notice of Discontinuance, a copy of which was enclosed.

5. The matter was called 11.45 am and there has been no appearance by or on behalf of either party.  I am satisfied that the parties are aware of the proceedings being listed today, but have decided not to participate further in the proceedings.

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

Associate: 

Date:  22 August 2007