Strahan and Strahan

[2017] FamCA 76

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRAHAN & STRAHAN [2017] FamCA 76

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Strahan

RESPONDENT: Mr Strahan

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 9 February 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 9 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Lindsay With Mr Heinrich

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Jordan & Fowler

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Wilson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Kennedy Partners

Orders

1. That all outstanding applications are adjourned to 10.00am (Melbourne time) on 3 March 2017 for the determination of all outstanding interlocutory issues.

2. That the wife file and serve by 4.00pm (Adelaide time) on 16 February 2017 any application together with supporting affidavit material upon which she intends to rely.

3. That the husband file and serve by 4.00pm (Adelaide time) on 1 March 2017 any response with supporting affidavit material upon which he intends to rely.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Strahan & Strahan has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228  of 2005

Ms Strahan

Applicant

And

Mr Strahan

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 9 February 2017, at the instigation of the court, this long-running property proceeding was listed for management reasons.

2. In September 2016, Austin J as the national case management judge of the court listed the property dispute for final hearing in Adelaide to commence in April 2017 and thereafter set a timetable for the parties to file relevant material.  In addition, his Honour dismissed all outstanding interim proceedings.

3. Whilst there had been some compliance by the husband, neither party had fulfilled the obligations under the orders.  Those orders provided the opportunity for the court to list the matter if there was non-compliance.

4. Mr Lindsay on behalf of the wife indicated that new solicitors had just come on the record for the wife prior to Christmas and he foreshadowed that an application for the adjournment of the April trial would soon be made.  Mr Wilson of counsel on behalf of the husband indicated that his client was about to file the trial affidavit material and was otherwise ready to proceed.

5. Mr Lindsay indicated that there were three outstanding matters that required attention before the case could proceed to trial.  The first of those issues related to litigation funding.  It seems that there have been previous orders including that a solicitor retain funds in trust for the purposes of…