Royce and Royce (No 3)

[2012] FamCA 1040

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROYCE & ROYCE (NO 3) [2012] FamCA 1040

FAMILY LAW – Parties fail to prosecute case.  Struck out.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Royce

RESPONDENT: Mr Royce

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11662 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 19 October 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 19 October 2012

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That the application of the wife filed 6 September 2012 is struck out for non-appearance.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Royce & Royce 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 11662 of 2011

Ms Royce

Applicant

And

Mr Royce

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 6 September 2012 the wife filed an application in a case seeking a variety of orders that might be described as lump sum spousal maintenance, periodic payments of spousal maintenance and child support.  She supported that application with an affidavit.  The husband does not appear to have filed any response.  It is now 4.40 pm on the duty list day.  The parties were called early this morning and both indicated that the matter was proceeding.  It is now the end of a long day and they appear to have left without indicating what their intentions are.

2. It is important in this case to note that there is a defended final hearing listed for 11 December as the fourth case in a list and three days have been allocated for it.  I made observations early this morning about the fact that these sorts of orders that the wife was seeking were unusual having regard to the closeness of the final hearing.  There being no further representation by either party, the application of the wife of 6 September is struck out.  The reasons can be placed on the court file.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 19 October 2012.

Associate:

Date:  10 December 2012