Tupe and Holland

[2012] FamCA 177

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TUPE & HOLLAND [2012] FamCA 177

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applications dismissed and matter finalised

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Tupe

RESPONDENT: Mr Holland

FILE NUMBER: TVC 872 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 19 March 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Townsville

PLACE HEARD: Townsville

JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J

HEARING DATE: 19 March 2012

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Applicant Mother’s Initiating Application filed 11 August 2010 be dismissed.

1. The Respondent Father’s Response filed 14 September 2011 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Tupe & Holland has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT TOWNSVILLE

FILE NUMBER: TVC 872 of 2010

Ms Tupe

Applicant

And

Mr Holland

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I will order that each of the application filed by the mother on 11 August 2010 and the response filed by the father on the 14 September 2011 be dismissed. 

2. The mother filed proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court in August 2010.  In accordance with the procedures of that Court, an affidavit accompanying that application was filed.  The respondent filed a response about 12 months later on 14 September 2011.  He too filed an affidavit.

3. Apart from those documents, no other documents have been filed by either of the parties in the proceedings in that Court, or in this Court subsequent to the transfer of the matter on 22 November 2011. 

4. On 7 February 2012, this court held a callover of matters then awaiting trial in the Townsville registry.  Ahead of that callover, on 25 January 2012, procedural directions were made for the filing of material and the like so that the readiness of that matter for trial could be assessed at the callover on 7 February 2012.

5. No directions made on that date were complied with. 

6. On 7 February 2012, the respondent father did not appear.  The mother was represented by a solicitor, Mr MacGuire.  A short time after that callover, Mr MacGuire ceased acting for the mother.  Two previous solicitors had acted for the mother and each had withdrawn prior to that time. 

7. In light of the matter’s history and the non-appearance of the father, I ordered at the callover on 7 February 2012 that the matter be listed for directions before a registrar.  That occurred and the matter was heard on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 by Registrar Boyd. 

8. The parties were each given notice of that hearing.  I will read into the record the note taken by Registrar Boyd of that appearance:

   Notwithstanding the fact that neither party had requested to attend the hearing by telephone, I obtained their mobile numbers and attempted to ring them both. 

   I interpose here that this resulted from neither of the parties attending before the registrar at the date and time appointed for that hearing. The registrar’s note continues: 

   I rang the mother first.  She was initially very defensive and quickly adopted a belligerent and uncooperative attitude.  She said that she did not wish to speak to me.  I explained that this was a formal hearing and whilst she was not obliged to speak with me, there may be consequences if she did not participate in the court process. The mother then told me that she had consulted a solicitor.  I asked her the solicitor’s name and she said, “I’m not telling you.”  She then refused to answer my questions and remained silent [without terminating the call].  I asked her several times whether she intended to speak with me before hanging up. 

   I then attempted to ring the father.  My call went to voice mail.  I attempted to ring him three times.  I rang his former solicitor and confirmed that I was ringing the correct number.  Matter to be referred back to Murphy J on a convenient day in the coming sittings. 

9. It is noted that neither party has complied with the trial directions made by me. 

10. Subsequent to that date, there has been no further communication with the Court by either of the parties nor any compliance with earlier directions made. 

11. There has been no step taken by either party to advance this matter since they respectively filed their initiating proceedings in August 2010 and September 2011. 

12. This Court does not exist to serve the interest of parties who show no interest in the proceedings which they invoke. The proceedings will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy delivered on 19 March 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  27 March 2012