SAINTCLAIRE & SAINTCLAIRE

[2011] FamCA 135

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAINTCLAIRE & SAINTCLAIRE [2011] FamCA 135

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY – husband’s oral application to adjourn proceedings – application refused

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Saintclaire

RESPONDENT: Mr Saintclaire

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7614 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 21 February 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Rose J

HEARING DATE: 21 February 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: J Levy

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Pearson Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: A Givney

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Norwest Family Law

Orders

1. That the husband’s oral application for adjournment is refused.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER:  SYC7614 of 2010

Ms Saintclaire

Applicant

And

Mr Saintclaire

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. In these proceedings, which were set down for hearing in the duty list, the issues for determination on an interim basis include:  non-molestation;  interim spousal maintenance;  an injunction in relation to sale of the former matrimonial home and interim costs.

2. An oral application was made on behalf of the husband that the proceedings be adjourned on certain terms.  The terms included payment of spousal maintenance of $600.00 per week, the first payment within seven days and to continue until 4.00 pm on the next date fixed for hearing of wife’s application.  It was submitted that if the proceedings are adjourned the husband will refrain from taking any steps to sell the former matrimonial home until further order.  In addition, the husband will provide an undertaking in relation to non-molestation in the usual terms.

3. The application for adjournment is opposed.

4. Counsel for the wife emphasised the amount of time that has been available for the husband and those advising him to be prepared, especially in relation to the submission made by counsel for the husband that further investigation needs to be carried out on the wife’s financial affairs and utilisation by her of her financial resources.

Conclusion

1. I have reviewed the material relied upon by the parties and the relevant past directions that have been made.

2. I am satisfied that a reasonable time has been made available to the husband and those representing him to be prepared for today’s hearing.

3. Given that the wife’s application is pressed, especially for financial relief, the application for the adjournment is refused.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Rose delivered on 21 February 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  4 March 2011