Saines and Ryan

[2016] FCCA 315

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAINES & RYAN [2016] FCCA 315

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure – application for location order – no other orders sought – application is incompetent.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.67L

Applicant: MR SAINES

Respondent: MS RYAN

File Number: MLC 9230 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 4 February 2016

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 4 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

The Respondent: No appearance

ORDERS

1. The initiating application filed on 30 September 2015 is struck out.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 9230 of 2015

MR SAINES

Applicant

And

MS RYAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally.  They have been corrected from the transcript.  Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This matter was listed at 9:30am today.  It is 9:45am and there is no answer to the call.  The matter was listed for its first return date on 8 December 2015.  On that occasion the applicant father was represented and was seeking a Commonwealth information order.  The information order was the only final order and interim order sought, apart from the generic order “such other orders as this honourable court deems fit”. As I pointed out to the father’s solicitor on that occasion, the application does not properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction as there are no associated orders sought. Section 67L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires the Court to regard the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration when considering whether or not to make a location order.

3. I gave the father the opportunity to amend his initiating application.  The father has not done this and his solicitor filed a notice of withdrawal on 27 January 2016.  It will be obvious from this that the respondent has not been served so it is not surprising that there was no appearance.  As the application is incompetent and there is no appearance today, I strike the matter out.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Harland

Date:  17 February 2016