Ricci and Jones and Ors

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RICCI & JONES AND ORS [2014] FamCA 433

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Urgent injunction against third parties – Injunction refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Ricci

RESPONDENT: Mr Jones

2^ND RESPONDENT: Mr Gibson

3^RD RESPONDENT: E Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4426 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 23 May 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 23 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Matta

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Lennon Mazzeo Lawyers

THE 1^ST RESPONDENT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND AND 3^RD

RESPONDENTS:

Mr Hoult

Orders

1. That the application for interim orders filed 22 May 2014 is dismissed.

2. That the applicant pay the costs of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents by agreement and failing agreement as assessed by the Registrar.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

1. That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

2. That the reasons this day be transcribed.

3. That the application initiating proceedings is adjourned to a case assessment conference at 9.15am on 22 July 2014.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ricci & Jones and Ors 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 4426 of 2014

Ms Ricci

Applicant

And

Mr Jones and Others

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant seeks relief in this particular case under Part VIIIAA of the Family Law Act 1975 by an application filed yesterday.  I was told that it was intended to be an ex parte application as against all three respondents, but indeed the second and third respondents have attended today by counsel.  It is not disputed that the first respondent has not been served, although messages have apparently been left for him today.  Whether or not he is aware of the proceedings is not to the point.

2. The jurisdiction of this court arises out of the fact that the applicant asserts that she was in a de facto relationship with the first respondent.  She pleads that jurisdiction in her application and says that she was in a relationship with the first respondent from September 2009 to March 2014.  Absent some material from the respondent, there is clearly a prima facie case that the de facto relationship existed, for the purposes of giving rise to the jurisdiction.

3. In this case, however, the relief is sought against the second and third respondents albeit that it is not pleaded that way.  It is certainly pleaded against the first respondent, but for reasons that follow, no real consequence flows from the lack of his involvement in these proceedings.  The injunctions in this case are sought against the second and third respondent, and in particular in relation to the third respondent in its capacity as the proprietor of a property at…