Strahan and Strahan (No. 4)

[2008] FamCA 491

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRAHAN & STRAHAN (No. 4) [2008] FamCA 491

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management orders

APPLICANT: Mr Strahan

RESPONDENT: Mrs Strahan

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ann Bills

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 3 March 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 3 March 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Berman

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Robinson and Mason

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Abbott QC and
Mr Kearney

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Watts McCray

D PTY LTD COUNSEL: Ms Nelson QC

H PTY LTD COUNSEL: Ms Nelson QC

Orders

1. That the subpoena directed to H Pty Ltd issued on 13 December 2007 be dismissed.

2. That the Application in a Case filed on behalf of H Pty Ltd on 13 February 2008 be dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.

3. That further consideration of the subpoena directed to D Pty Ltd issued on 22 January 2008 and the Application in a Case filed on behalf of D Pty Ltd on 15 February 2008 be adjourned to 10:00am on 25 March 2008.

4. That the time for the husband to file and serve his statement of financial circumstances be extended to 4:00pm on 20 February 2008.

5. That the time for the husband to file and serve his affidavit of evidence in chief be extended to 4:00pm on 7 March 2008.

6. That the Application in a Case filed by the husband on 22 February 2008 be dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.

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. This morning I have two applications before me in relation to subpoenas.  The first was filed on 13 February 2008 seeking orders including setting aside the subpoena directed to H Pty Ltd and the second is an application filed on 15 February 2008 seeking orders including setting aside the subpoena directed to D Pty Ltd.

2. In relation to the first subpoena to H Pty Ltd I am told that information has been provided which has satisfied the wife and there is no further need to pursue that subpoena or the application.  In relation to the subpoena to D Pty Ltd I am told that there have been discussions in relation to compliance with that subpoena but that has not yet been concluded and the parties request that that matter be adjourned.

3. I also have before me an Application in a Case filed by the husband on 22 February 2008 seeking an extension of time to file his statement of financial circumstances and his affidavit of evidence in chief.  The husband has now filed his statement of financial circumstances and there is no objection by the wife to the husband having an extension of time to file that or his affidavit of evidence in chief to 4:00pm on 7 March 2008.

4. I made an order on 1 February 2008 that if the wife was proposing to pursue any further application in relation to property settlement that such application be filed by 4:00pm on 29 February 2008.  That related to issues as to discovery and production of documents and further investigations and inquiries to be undertaken by the single expert witness Ms E.  In that regard I made an order that Ms E provide a progress report as to when she would be able to complete her valuation, such report to be filed in writing by 4:00pm on 19 March 2008 or provided orally on 25 or 26 March 2008.

5. I had set aside 25 and 26 March to hear any further application by the wife and by way of case management I adjourned all other outstanding issues to that date.

6. I note that the wife has not filed any further application but the parties have now received a report from Ms E which raises further issues and they have determined that further discussions need to be held with Ms E before filing any application. Mr Abbott still asks that 25 and 26 March be reserved for this case.

7. In relation to Ms E’s further report I am told that that was not intended to be a substitute for the progress report that I ordered on 1 February 2008 and I am still expecting that report to be provided by Ms E.

I certify that the preceding 7 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered 3 March 2008.

Associate