TADDERDOWN & TADDERDOWN

[2010] FamCA 31

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TADDERDOWN & TADDERDOWN [2010] FamCA 31

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Tadderdown

RESPONDENT: Ms Tadderdown

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6719 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 25 JANUARY 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE: IN CHAMBERS

Orders

1. That the letter of the solicitors for the wife dated 23 December 2009 is referred to Registrar Field.

2. That subject to an application in a case being made by either party, the matter otherwise await a final hearing in due course.

3. That Registrar Field is referred to the reasons for these orders.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6719  of 2008

MR TADDERDOWN

Applicant

And

MS TADDERDOWN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. At a hearing before Senior Registrar FitzGibbon on 14 September 2009, orders were made by consent of the parties both of whom were represented by experienced counsel that should the husband desire a priority hearing, he should file submissions with my Associate by 4.00pm on Wednesday 18 November 2009.  The order then provided that if the husband filed such an application for priority hearing, the wife had to file her response by Monday 29 November 2009.

2. The interim applications before the Senior Registrar that day concerned the enforcement of a financial agreement said to be made on 7 November 2008 under s 90C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).

3. No application has been made by the husband for a priority hearing. 

4. On 23 December 2009 by letter, the solicitors for the wife noted the absence of any such application by the husband and therefore said:

   On that basis we have now prepared a bullet summary with respect to an application for priority which we seek to be determined by Justice Cronin in chambers.

5. There was no provision in the orders of the Senior Registrar for such an application to be made and even if there could be seen to be one, it was not within time.  In addition, there was no extant interim application.

6. The “bullet summary” said that the husband had not complied with the obligations under the agreement and had therefore caused the wife financial hardship.  The wife asserted that in addition to not complying with the terms of the agreement and also a child support agreement, the husband’s actions constituted “economic abuse” of the wife.

7. With the intervening Christmas period, the Court was unable to provide a response to the solicitors.

8. My Associate then advised both parties of the availability of an urgent hearing.  The solicitor for the husband needed to obtain instructions and the solicitor for the wife said that he was going on leave and would not have time to brief counsel.

9. Leaving aside the question of any extant application which would found the proposed priority hearing, I am not in a position now to provide urgent resources of the Court for some weeks.

10. Accordingly, I propose to simply refer the matter to the Registrar responsible for the file and the parties can pursue matters properly if the issue is still of concern.

I certify that the preceding Ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  25 January 2010