Reece and Reece

[2013] FamCA 772

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REECE & REECE [2013] FamCA 772

FAMILY LAW – RULING

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Reece

RESPONDENT: Mr Reece

FILE NUMBER: MLC 991 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 5 September 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 5 September 2013

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. That the application of the wife filed 14 February 2013 is withdrawn by leave.

2. That the affidavits by the wife filed 14 February 2013 and 15 March 2013 along with the affidavit of the husband filed 15 March 2013 may be forthwith uplifted from the file and returned to the deponents.

3. That all outstanding proceedings are otherwise struck out.

4. That the reasons this day be transcribed and be placed on the court file.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Reece & Reece 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 991 of 2013

Ms Reece

Applicant

And

Mr Reece

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 14 February 2013, Ms Reece filed an application seeking a decree of nullity of marriage that took place on 22 July 2010 to Mr Reece.  Both parties have appeared before the Court on 9 May and again today. 

2. The adjournment on 9 May was for the applicant wife to obtain legal advice.  I am assured by her today, she has had legal advice.  Despite that I have some serious concerns about what she was told and what she is doing.  It seems that the appropriate course is to agree to allow her to withdraw the application.  I propose to grant that application.

3. The second issue is whether or not the affidavits of both Ms Reece, which were filed on 14 February and 15 March, and that of Mr Reece, filed 15 March, should not only be withdrawn but be withdrawn from the file.  Having regard to the fact that they were both filed at a time when neither party seemed to have had legal advice, and each was potentially making concessions the criminal law would be very concerned about, I propose to give them permission to have those uplifted from the file, and retained by them.  What course of action they take thereafter is a matter entirely for them. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 5 September 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  27 September 2013