Tallios and Tallios

[2014] FamCA 604

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TALLIOS & TALLIOS [2014] FamCA 604

FAMILY LAW – Adjournment – Refusal to transfer to Federal Circuit Court.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Tallios

RESPONDENT: Mr Tallios

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5084 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 26 June 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 26 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: R F Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Bowlen Dunstan & Associates

Orders

1. That the application filed 7 February 2014 is adjourned to the Registrar’s Duty List at 10.30am on 6 August 2014.

2. That the husband file and serve a response and financial statement by 4.00pm on 24 July 2014.

3. That the reasons this day be transcribed and be made available to the parties.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Tallios & Tallios 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 5084 of 2013

Ms Tallios

Applicant

And

Mr Tallios

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 4 June 2014, I began what, at that stage, appeared to be an undefended hearing between the husband and the wife.  The reason it was undefended was that there had been no appearance throughout the proceedings by or on behalf of the husband.  The case had actually progressed through a number of hearings before registrars, who felt that they had gone as far as they could with it, and that it required judicial determination.

2. I had to adjourn the matter on 4 June 2014 on the basis that, in my view, the applicant wife could not succeed with what she was seeking, bearing in mind the state of preparation by she and her lawyers.  Having got as far as I did with the hearing, the wife who appeared by her solicitor conceded that a number of things had to be done.

3. I therefore made orders adjourning the matter to today and made a variety of other directions as to service of the orders upon the husband, both by email and personally.  In addition to that I made a specific injunctive order relating to the husband providing the wife with access to what was the former matrimonial home.  In the intervening period, for reasons that are not explained, the husband has decided to participate and gone to a solicitor who, on 18 June, filed a notice of address for service. 

4. Yesterday, my associate received a letter from the solicitors for the wife indicating that they wanted the matter to be adjourned to enable the husband to file responding material.  The orders that the solicitor proposed was that the husband file material by 24 July; the parties attend a conciliation conference on a date to be fixed and to my surprise, the matter be otherwise transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

5. Why this case would be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia when it was issued in this Court in the first place, presumably on the basis that it had some complexity and is now no longer complex, escapes me.  It is not appropriate that I make the orders sought by the parties in this particular case, having regard to the fact that notwithstanding the notice of address for service was filed on 18 June, nothing has been filed by the husband.

6. How it is that they or indeed the solicitor for the wife can say that the matter is not now complex and should be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where there is absolutely no pleading by the husband, also escapes me.  I propose, therefore, not to make the orders that they are seeking, other than the fact that the husband file material by 24 July, but otherwise to transfer the matter to a registrar to obviously decide whether or not the case should be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court or indeed remain in this list.

7. I remind the parties in this particular case that there are orders that have been made of an injunctive nature, the expiry provisions have now well and truly gone by, and no doubt, someone will explain to the registrar why this case has got as far as it has without the matter being properly prepared.  On that basis, I make the following orders:

8. The application filed 7 February 2014 is adjourned to 6 August 2014 at 10.30 am in the registrar’s duty list. 

9. The husband is to file and serve a response and a financial statement by 4 o’clock on 24 July 2014 and the reasons this day are to be transcribed.  Thank you. 

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 26 June 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  25 July 2014