Ting and Fingal (No 3)

[2013] FamCA 1105

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TING & FINGAL (NO 3) [2013] FamCA 1105

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

APPLICANT: Ms Ting

RESPONDENT: Mr Fingal

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 130 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 15 August 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

JUDGMENT OF: Johns J

HEARING DATE:

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr I. Robinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr G. Thompson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

The orders that I am going to make:

1. That all extant applications be adjourned for hearing as a part heard matter on 3 September 2013 at 10 am.

2. On or before 28 August 2013, each party file and serve:

   (a)       a bullet point summary of argument in relation to the issues in dispute;

   (b)       a list of discoverable documents upon which they seek to rely in support of their applications and each party have the opportunity to inspect the other’s documents thereafter.

3. Each party provide to the court, at the commencement of the adjourned hearing, a statement setting out the costs incurred to that date and from what source those funds have been paid and what costs are expected to be incurred until the completion of the hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ting & Fingal (No 3) 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: MLF 130 of 2013

Ms Ting

Applicant

And

Mr Fingal

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have an oral application made this afternoon by counsel for the applicant, seeking leave to interpose a witness, Mr B, whom I note has sworn an affidavit in these proceedings on 15 March 2013.  The basis for the application is that the witness, Mr B, has been approached by either the respondent or people on his behalf or that the respondent has approached relations of Mr B, the inference being that financial threats or other approaches have been made to Mr B, presumably to withdraw his evidence or change his evidence in these proceedings.

2. Given the nature of the proceedings, the fact that credit is a significant issue in the case, I’m not inclined to grant the application to interpose the witness and I rule accordingly.

RECORDED:  NOT TINGSCRIBED

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns delivered on 15 August 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  15 August 2013