Simpson and Caldridge

[2008] FamCA 44

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SIMPSON & CALDRIDGE [2007] FamCA 44

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE - Application for expedited hearing - Refused

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: MS SIMPSON

RESPONDENT: MR CALDRIDGE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 328 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 6 February 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: MELBOURNE

PLACE HEARD: BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE: BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: MIDDLETONS

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: HARWOOD ANDREWS LAWYERS

Orders

1. That the application for an expedited hearing is refused.

2. That the application be placed in the list of cases awaiting a final hearing before a judge on a date to be fixed.

3. That there be liberty to apply if the circumstances otherwise change.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Simpson & Caldrdige.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF328 of 2007

MS SIMPSON

Applicant

And

MR CALDRIDGE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an expedited final hearing of proceedings.  Pursuant to orders, it has been dealt with in chambers on the papers filed specifically relating to the application.

2. The substantive proceeding is about parenting orders.

3. The proceedings began with an application by the husband filed on 11 October 2007 in the Magistrates Court at Geelong seeking that the mother be precluded from removing the children from the Commonwealth of Australia.

4. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the wife, it was said that on 28 November 2007, the wife filed a response to the husband’s application for final orders.  According to the submission, she sought both parenting and property orders.  An examination of the file shows that the only document that was filed by the wife on 28 November 2007 was a Notice of Address for Service in handwriting signed by her solicitors.  Notwithstanding that, it is clearly understood from the wife’s other material that she was seeking to relocate to the United States of America.

5. On 20 December 2007, the respective applications of the parties came before Watt J at which time, they resolved some of the interim issues and agreed that orders would be sought for an expeditious hearing. 

6. As a consequence, an application by the wife has been made to expedite the hearing.

7. Notwithstanding the orders of Watt J, the submissions of the wife were received late. Whilst that may not have caused inconvenience to the Court, it obviously created a dilemma for the practitioners for the husband. As the result of a letter from them dated 4 February 2008, I granted leave to extend the filing time of their response.

8. The husband’s response was filed by email transmission on 6 February 2008. Contrary to the directions and intentions of the Court that the submission be in short “bullet-point” form, both parties have descended into complicated summaries of argument about the facts. That is…