Strahan and Strahan (No. 6)

[2008] FamCA 833

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRAHAN & STRAHAN (NO. 6) [2008] FamCA 833

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE – Case management

APPLICANT: Mr Strahan

RESPONDENT: Ms Strahan

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 19 August 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 19 August 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr N Ackman QC with
Ms McMillan and
Mr Berman

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Robinson and Mason

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr G Holland

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Georgiadis & Co

ORDERS

1. That on or before 31 October 2008 Ms E the single expert appointed in this case provide her draft report to the parties.

2. That on or before 4:00pm on 14 November 2008 the parties have liberty to raise any issue with Ms E in relation to her report on the basis that that be raised in writing and a copy thereof be provided to the other party.

3. That this matter be listed for a directions hearing at 9:15am on 19 November 2008 with liberty to vacate that hearing in the event that it becomes unnecessary.

4. That on or before 4:00pm on 1 December 2008 Ms E file and serve her final report.

5. That the time for the husband to file and serve responding documents to the application filed by the wife on 18 July 2008 be extended to 4:00pm on 25 August 2008.

6. That leave is granted to the husband to file and serve an affidavit responding to the affidavit filed by the wife in relation to interim child issues, such affidavit to be filed and served by 4:00pm on 29 August 2008.

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

MS STRAHAN

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. This matter was listed before me today primarily to ascertain the progress of Ms E in terms of her investigations and her report.  In that regard Ms E tells me everything is on track for her report to be completed and available by the end of October.

2. However, there is apparently an outstanding request of the husband to provide certain information.  Ms E has said that as long as she gets that information by mid‑September that will not affect the timing of the completion of her report.  Mr Ackman for the husband has indicated that that is not a difficulty and the request of Ms E’s will be able to be complied with by mid‑September. 

3. Mr Holland for the wife has raised whether the parties should be given the opportunity to comment in relation to any factual issues arising from the report before it is completed and he has taken me to a clause in Ms E’s engagement letter, which I am told is a standard clause and not particular to this case.  I will not repeat all that has been said to me about that.

4. In the end result, and after hearing submissions, I consider that the parties should have an opportunity to respond and/or provide further information and/or submissions to Ms E once they each see her report.  However, I want to confine that to a strict time frame, and I will not try and repeat what I said earlier about what I had in mind.  That is on the transcript if anybody needs to refer to it.  What I have in mind though is that Ms E provide a draft report without her final opinion to the parties by 31 October and that the parties then have two weeks thereafter to respond to that and raise any issues that they feel it is necessary to do with Ms E in that time frame.  Then Ms E has a further two weeks to take on board any issue raised by the parties and complete her report.

5. As I have also said, I do not want Ms E to get involved in any dispute.  If there is a dispute, then that will need to be sorted out by me and I will arrange a directions hearing appropriately.

6. The husband requires an extension of time to file documents and he also seeks leave to file an affidavit in response to the wife's affidavit in relation to the child issues. There is no opposition to either the extension or the granting of leave, as long as that is confined to a relatively strict time frame.

I certify that the preceding 6 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered on 19 August 2008.

Associate