STROUD & REES (SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS)

[2014] FamCA 774

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STROUD & REES (SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS) [2014] FamCA 774

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Supplementary reasons

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Stroud

RESPONDENT: Ms Rees

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11270 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 12 September 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 26, 27, 28 & 29 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Testart

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: The Law Office

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lowy

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Sofra Solicitors Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Eidelson

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: McKean Park

Orders

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11270 of 2011

Mr Stroud

Applicant

And

Ms Rees

Respondent

Independent Children’s Lawyer

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 11 September 2014, I pronounced orders and published reasons for judgment.

2. Quite properly, the solicitors for the respondent by letter which was copied to all other parties, indicated that there was an error in the reasons which should be rectified notwithstanding (as indicated by the solicitors) that the error did not have any impact on the ultimate decision.  This was brought to the attention of the Court by the solicitor as a result of her professional role.

3. Paragraph 88 of the reasons read:

   I have earlier referred to the fact that on 8 May 2013, consent orders were made and that the mother now alleges that she felt pressured by her barrister to agree to the orders including the statement that I have mentioned in relation to her concern about “jail”.  The court record notes that while different counsel appeared for the mother in October 2013, the same firm of solicitors acted for her.  That same firm of solicitors prepared the affidavit for these trial proceedings.  Nothing was led in evidence to explain why that firm did nothing about the serious allegation against counsel.

4. The reference to the same solicitors acting for the mother in 2013 is quite incorrect.  The significance of the observation in the reasons concerned the mother’s actions at the hearing in May 2013.  At that time, a different firm of solicitors than those presently acting for her, were not only briefing counsel but also on the court record.  Accordingly, the error is entirely mine.

5. What was not said in the affidavit perhaps unfortunately, was that in addition to changing solicitors, according to the current solicitors, the mother has lodged a complaint with the Legal Services Commissioner in relation to her former solicitor’s representation at that time and that determination remains pending.

6. To the extent that any error has been made, I agree that it does not affect the ultimate outcome of these proceedings but the responsibility for the error is entirely mine.

I certify that the preceding Six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the supplementary reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 12 September 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  12 September 2014