Strahan and Strahan

[2008] FamCA 488

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRAHAN & STRAHAN [2008] FamCA 488

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment

APPLICANT: Mr Strahan

RESPONDENT: Mrs Strahan

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms A Bills

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 24 April 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 24 April 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr D Berman

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Robinson and Mason

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms M Pyke QC and
Mr G Holland

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pederick Lawyers

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

COUNSEL:

Ms V West

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

SOLICITOR:

Ann Bills & Associates

Orders

1. That further consideration be adjourned to 9:00am on 27 June 2008.

2. That leave is granted to Ms E to attend the adjourned hearing by way of telephone.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

MR STRAHAN

Applicant

And

MRS STRAHAN

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. In dealing firstly with the child issue, the parties' respective positions are that that is still to be heard with the issue of property settlement and the part‑heard trial therefore needs to be further adjourned.

2. In relation to whether there is to be an expert instructed by the Independent Children's Lawyer, I am told that inquiries are still being made about that.  No‑one has been identified yet as either available or with sufficient qualifications to be able to undertake that task. 

3. In relation to the property settlement issue, and I should have perhaps mentioned this at the start because it applies to both issues, the wife has now instructed new solicitors and has Mr Holland briefed as counsel today.  I am told that the file or files of the wife's previous solicitors have not yet been handed over.  Mr Holland tells me that assuming that can occur relatively quickly, the wife's new legal representatives would probably need a couple of months to come to terms with and get on top of this matter.  That is a matter though for the wife and her new legal advisers, and at this stage I do not propose to delay this matter for that reason.  It has in this Court for a number of years now and needs to be brought to finality.

4. In any event, in relation to the property settlement, we had the advantage of Ms E, the single expert witness, on a telephone link.  Mr Berman informed me of what the position was with the orders that I made on 25 March and I do not need to repeat that.  However, there are still further documents that the husband is to provide to Ms E.  They are in the category of bank statements and various documents in relation to four or five entities, which Mr Berman has identified in his submission to me today.  He tells me that the husband will be able to provide those documents within four to five weeks, and that will complete, as far as the husband is concerned, his response to any requests or outstanding requests for documents or for information by Ms E.

5. There is one outstanding issue apparently in relation to the wife and her provision of documents to Ms E, and that relates to the wife’s Investment Trust.  Ms E says that tax returns and financial statements have not been provided for that trust.  Mr Holland's instructions are that they have, but in any event Mr Holland tells me that can be sorted out very quickly, and if for some reason Ms E has not got those documents, that can easily be remedied.

6. Thus, assuming that is the case, once the husband completes his exercise, Ms E will have all the documents that apparently she is going to get.  On that basis Ms E told me that, assuming there are no significant issues arising from those further documents and in her preparation of her report, she might very well have her report available by August.  I am not holding her to that, though, but that gives some timeframe to the progress of this matter.  Frankly, if that pans out then I will be looking to re-list this matter towards the end of this calendar year. 

7. Mr Holland has also foreshadowed a possible application in relation to funding.  He is not asking me to set any date for that but it is a matter that he has quite properly raised, and I will deal with that if and when there is such an application filed.

8. I propose to adjourn all matters to 27 June.  I have requested that Ms E attend that hearing by way of telephone link.

I certify that the preceding 8 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered 24 April 2008.

Associate