Stapleton & Hayes

[2007] FamCA 1377

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STAPLETON & HAYES [2007] FamCA 1377

FAMILY LAW – RULING – Re-listing

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Stapleton

RESPONDENT: Mr Hayes

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2750 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 9 November 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

RULING OF: Moore J

HEARING DATE: In chambers 9 November 2007

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT: Millard Goddard

SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER:  SYC 2750 of 2007

MS STAPLETON

Applicant

And

MR HAYES

Respondent

Ruling

1. This matter was allocated to me according to the current case management procedures of this Registry. 

2. There are proceedings for parenting orders about the parties’ two children aged 7 and 6 years respectively and property settlement.  There is now a history of Court proceedings stretching back some years. 

3. Mr Miller acts for the applicant mother. The father is self represented, solicitors having ceased to act for him in early September.  An independent children’s lawyer was appointed 1 May 2007 by order of the Judicial Registrar. 

4. The matter has been before me on one occasion, 18 September.  On that date I made interim orders for supervised time between the children and their father, amongst other orders, and with the consent of the parties appointed Dr R, psychiatrist, a single expert to report to the Court on certain matters specified in the orders.  Amongst others, there was also an order that no further applications or affidavits be filed without the leave of the Court. 

5. A series of matters has been brought to my attention in the course this morning, better addressed by this ruling which I direct be sent forthwith to all parties.  They are these:

   a)A letter dated 31 October directed to my Associate in chambers was received from the independent children’s lawyer requesting the matter be relisted for a ‘short mention’ by reason of the parties’ inability to reach agreement ‘with respect to a number of issues relating to the appointment of the expert’. 

   b)A letter dated 2 November [but apparently faxed to the Court late on 5 November] directed to my Associate in chambers was received from the mother’s solicitor, Mr Miller, advising he is not aware of any ‘issues’ about which the parties are required to reach agreement relating to the appointment of the expert and, furthermore, Mr Miller is not available for the matter to be relisted on a series of dates set out. 

   c)A further letter dated 5 November [apparently faxed to the Court early on the morning of 6 November] directed to my Associate in chambers was received from Mr Miller.  It refers to a phone call from a court staff member advising the matter has been listed for 14 November 2007 at 9.45am, notes the advice in the letter of 2 November that Mr Miller will not be available on the dates advised there [which includes 14 November] and requests the matter be relisted to a date when he ‘will’ [quoted as written] be available. 

   d)In apparent contravention of the direction made on 18 September about the filing of applications without leave, on 5 November Mr Miller filed on behalf of the mother an application seeking orders against the father for security of costs, related to the father’s application for property settlement. The Registry has allocated to it the return date of 14 November at 9.45am. 

6. These developments are unacceptable from more than one viewpoint. The purpose of this ruling and the orders to follow is to intervene and thus sideline agitation of any further dispute by correspondence with my staff, leaving other issues to be addressed directly later:

7. I make these orders in the absence of all parties:

   1.        The mention before Moore J at 9.45am 14 November 2007 is vacated.

   2.If the independent children’s lawyer seeks further directions related to the appointment of the single expert pursuant to the orders of 18 September 2007, the form of further orders or directions sought is to be notified in writing to the respondent father and to the solicitor for the mother within 7 days from the date hereof and, if there is no agreement about the issue within 14 days of so notifying them, leave is granted for the independent children’s lawyer to make an application to be listed on short notice seeking orders or directions to that effect;

   3.Leave is granted to the mother to file the application for security for costs on 5 November 2007.

   4.The return date of 14 November 2007 of the application referred to in 3 hereof is vacated and the matter is listed for hearing in the Judicial Registrar’s duty list at 10 am 11 December 2007. 

   5.This ruling and a copy of these orders are to be sent forthwith to the parties and/or legal representatives. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the ruling of the Honourable Justice Moore

Associate

Date:  9 November 2007