Roux and Roux

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROUX & ROUX [2013] FCCA 359

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Attempted enforcement of final orders by third party (litigation funder) – joinder of parties – discretionary considerations including proceedings in other jurisdictions, time constraints/delay – proper forum – application to intervene by non-party (litigation funder).

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975, ss.79A, 92, 105

Family Law Rules2004, rr.20.05, 20.59
Federal Circuit Court Rules2001, Part 11

Cases cited:
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337.

Campbells Cash & Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 386
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 286 ALR 12
In the Marriage of CR & JM Griffiths (1980) 7 Fam LR 317
Levy v State of Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579
Vitzdamm-Jones v Vitzdamm-Jones (1981) 148 CLR 383
In the Marriage of W (1982) 8 Fam LR 323

Applicant: MS ROUX

Respondent: MS ROUX

File Number: CAC 880 of 2007

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: 11 April 2013

Date of Last Submission: 11 April 2013

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 11 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Applicant: Not applicable

Counsel for the Respondent: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Not applicable

Solicitor/advocate for the Intervener: Mr Jones

Solicitors for the Intervener: Argyle Lawyers Pty Ltd, Sydney

ORDERS

1. The Application in a Case, filed 10 January 2013, be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Roux & Roux is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT CANBERRA

CAC 880 of 2007

MS ROUX

Applicant

And

MS ROUX

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

Introduction

1. On 31^st March 2008, consent orders in relation to parenting were made by this Court.

2. On 22^nd October 2010, consent orders in relation to property were made by this Court.

3. On 10^th January 2013, an Application in a Case was filed by [A] Limited (“[A]”). [A] was never a party to either the parenting or property proceedings between the parties, or otherwise the subject of any orders made by the Court in relation to those matters. Briefly stated, [A] sought orders to intervene in the original proceedings, and sought further orders, pursuant to ss.92(1), 79A, and 106 of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) to enforce (in the alternative) (a) the original 2010 property orders, or (b) a judgment obtained in the District Court of Queensland against the Applicant Wife (Ms B, formerly, Ms Roux).  [A] provided funding for Ms B for her family law proceedings.  For the reasons that follow, the Application by [A] must be dismissed.

Background

1. The orders sought by [A] are as follows:

   1. Pursuant to section 92(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), that [A] Limited (ACN [omitted]) be granted leave to intervene in the proceedings.

   2. Pursuant to section 106 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and Chapter 20 of…