THESTOR & BUGNO

[2014] FamCA 58

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THESTOR & BUGNO [2014] FamCA 58

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Both parties filed Notice of Discontinuance – All extant applications dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Thestor

RESPONDENT: Mr Bugno

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1127 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 31 January 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 31 January 2014

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That all extant applications are dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Thestor & Bugno 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 1127 of 2012

Ms Thestor

Applicant

And

Mr Bugno

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There is no appearance of either party in this case and perhaps that’s not surprising, because each party has filed on 29 January 2014 a notice of discontinuance. 

2. Unfortunately or otherwise, that notice of discontinuance applies to the contravention application.  The difficulty I have with it is that on 30 August last year I found the contraventions proved, so the question of the parties’ desire to run or not run their contravention application has been removed from their hands.

3. What I did on 30 August last year was make an order that the matter be listed today for mention with an anticipated trial in a few days time, because the real issue between the parties related to the parenting of a child.

4. It seems the parties have used a bit of commonsense and worked things out themselves, but I want to make clear that while they might be contemplating that they are only discontinuing their contraventions, that was no my purpose.  My purpose was to deal with parenting orders.

5. On the basis, therefore, that there are no orders sought by either party, all extant applications are dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 31 January 2014.

Associate:  

Date:  12 February 2014