South and Cordas

[2010] FamCA 24

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH & CORDAS [2010] FamCA 24

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr South

RESPONDENT: Ms Cordas

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4866 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 14 January 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 14 January 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Cantwell

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hogg & Reid

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Lim

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Moores Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Smith

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Victoria Legal Aid

Orders

1. That BY CONSENT there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the husband engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

3. That the hearing before the Honourable Justice Barry on 27 January 2010 is vacated.

4. That all outstanding parenting applications are adjourned to Registrar Sikiotis at 12 noon on 19 March 2009 for consideration of listing for final hearing if ready to proceed.

5. That my reasons for judgment this day be transcribed.

6. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4866 of 2009

MR SOUTH

Applicant

And

MS CORDAS

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a mention of the matter on the basis that all outstanding applications were listed for final hearing in January.  I dealt with the matter last year, and listed it then because of the fact that there was most likely to have been a schooling issue.  With some good, sound advice and some common sense, the parties have resolved the property issues between them, as well as the schooling issue, leaving the parenting issue alive.  The parties have agreed to attend upon Ms D for the purposes of a family report, and they have agreed also that they will endeavour to use that as some form of discussion base to try and resolve the problems.  I have indicated to the parties that I will put the matter before Registrar Sikiotis about three weeks after the parties attend upon Ms D for the purpose of examining whether the case is ready to proceed on the parenting issue and, if it is, then the registrar can make the relevant directions and arrangements with me to list the matter before the first available judge. 

2. In terms of the property proceedings which have been compromised between the parties, I am told that they have agreement that the former matrimonial home will be sold and after the discharge of the mortgage, the proceeds will be roughly divided as to 55 per cent to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife, with a further adjustment of 45,000 either way.  There are significant contribution issues which have been reflected in the orders.  There are adjustments under section 75(2) favouring the husband because of the disparity of earning power, the wife having re-partnered, and the equality of superannuation.  Both parties agree that those are the facts upon which they wish the court to make the order.  The court should only make an order if it is satisfied in the circumstances that it is just and equitable to do so.  Having seen what the parties want to do, it seems to me that this is a very sensible outcome, and I am satisfied in the circumstances that it is just and equitable. 

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  22 January 2010