Stephens and Stephens

[2009] FamCA 64

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STEPHENS & STEPHENS [2009] FamCA 64

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT - Orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: MS STEPHENS

RESPONDENT: MR STEPHENS

FILE NUMBER: MLC 788 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 2 February 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 2 February 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr I. Kennedy

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Kennedy Wisewoulds

Orders

1. That to give better effect to paragraph 1 of the Order of the Honourable Justice Watts made on 1 February 2009 appointing Kennedy Wisewoulds Solicitors as stakeholders of the funds referred to in paragraph 1 of that Order the said solicitors be and are hereby authorised to deposit the said funds into the Kennedy Wisewoulds Trust Account at National Australia Bank pending further order of the Court.

2. That all questions of costs of and incidental to this application be reserved.

3. That this Order be brought to the attention of the Respondent husband Mr Stephens as soon as is practicable by the Court.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 788 of 2009

Ms STEPHENS

Applicant

And

Mr STEPHENS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application that has come to me today as the case management judge for Melbourne.  It is a matter that has arisen over the weekend out of the after‑hours service of the court. 

2. Watts J in Sydney by telephone made orders yesterday on Sunday, 1 February 2009 including:

   That Kennedy Wisewoulds solicitors of 459 Collins Street, Melbourne be and are hereby appointed to hold, as stakeholders, pending further of the court, the amount of $4,442,000 in cash, the funds the subject of dispute between the parties to these proceedings.

3. It transpires that with some afterthought the definition of "stakeholder" is not at all clear and the application has been made as a matter of urgency to enable Kennedy Wisewoulds to bank the money into their trust account to give effect to the purpose behind the orders. 

4. This is a difficult case involving a local person who has had his case go all the way to the High Court and there are a number of judges of this court who cannot hear it.  I am in that category as well, having actually appeared for the husband, and it is not appropriate that I do any more than give effect to the Watts J order, having regard to the fact that the amount of cash is being held and must be banked within the next few hours. 

5. It is quite clear from Watts J's order what he intended and I propose to make the orders in the absence of the husband.  I am told by Mr Kennedy that an endeavour was made to bring the matter to the husband’s attention through his former solicitors, but they are no longer acting for him and in those circumstances I see no prejudice to him in me making the order which effectively gives some impetus to the orders from yesterday. 

6. In those circumstances, I will make those orders.  I will ask Mr Kennedy add a further order, that the order be brought to the attention of the husband personally as soon as possible.  Costs reserved.

I certify that the preceding Six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin 

Associate: 

Date:  6 February 2009