Vrebac & Vrebac
[2023] FedCFamC1F 212
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Vrebac & Vrebac [2023] FedCFamC1F 212
File number(s): MLC 2942 of 2018 Judgment of: BENNETT J Date of judgment: 23 March 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- where leave to make oral application for separate trials refused. Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 6 Date of hearing: 23 March 2023 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Sweeney Solicitor for the Applicant: Sayer Jones Solicitor for the First Respondent: Bailey Timms Lawyers Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr Levine Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Maciel Pizzorno Lawyers Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Warlows Legal Counsel for the Intervener: No appearance ORDERS
MLC 2942 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS VREBAC
Applicant
AND: MR VREBAC
First Respondent
H INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
J PTY LTD
Third Respondent
MS JAVOR
Intervener
order made by:
BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 MARCH 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.I grant leave to the wife to make oral application for a dollar for dollar order in satisfaction of the outstanding costs orders to be paid by the husband and the second respondent H Investments Pty Ltd in favour of the wife and the third respondent J Pty Ltd and I relieve the wife from compliance with the rules of court in relation to filing an application in written form with supporting affidavit evidence.
2.Until the costs orders made by Justice McGuire on 22 October 2022 in favour of the wife and the third respondent J Pty Ltd are satisfied:
(a)The solicitors for the husband and the second respondent H Investments Pty Ltd (or either of them) pay or cause to be paid to the solicitors for the wife and J Pty Ltd a total of one half (50%) of any monies received by them (or either of them) from the husband and/or the second respondent H Investments Pty Ltd by way of legal costs or disbursements in this proceeding in the proportions of one third of such monies to the solicitors for J Pty Ltd and two thirds to the wife and, upon the liability to one party being satisfied, the whole of the one half (50%) of any monies received be paid to the solicitors for the other party whose entitlement under the costs order is not satisfied until that liability is so satisfied;
(b)The solicitors and counsel for either or both the husband and the second respondent H Investments Pty Ltd by themselves, their servants, agents or nominees be, and are hereby, restrained by injunction from dealing with any monies currently held for, or paid from this day, by the husband and/or the second respondent H Investments Pty Ltd on account of professional costs and disbursements otherwise in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) of this Order.
3.The solicitors for the wife and/or J Pty Ltd advise solicitors for the husband and/or the second respondent H Investments Pty Ltd promptly of the costs order in favour of their client being satisfied.
4.By not later than 5 p.m. on Monday 27 March 2023 the solicitors for the second respondent H Investments Pty Ltd file and serve a costs notification for this day.
5.Within 35 day the husband provide to the wife, via their practitioners, a report by his current treating psychiatrist as to his mental health, treatment and prognosis including:-
(a)the dates on which the husband has attended upon his psychiatrist since 2019;
(b)the dates (if any) on which the husband has missed appointments with his psychiatrist since 2019;
(c)the date (if any) on which the psychiatrist was provided with the report of Dr K dated 12 September 2018;
(d)the date (if any) on which the psychiatrist was provided with the family report of Ms L, Family Consultant, dated 3 August 2020.
6.Within 30 days of compliance by the husband with the preceding paragraph of this Order, the husband notify the wife in open correspondence between their respective solicitors, of the specific orders he seeks be made as final parenting orders in relation to X born 2013.
7.Within 30 days of compliance by the husband with the preceding paragraph of this Order, the wife notify the husband, in open correspondence between their respective solicitors, of the specific orders she seeks be made as final parenting orders in relation to X born 2013.
8.I decline leave to the second respondent H Investments Pty Ltd to make an oral application for a separate trial.
9.These proceedings be adjourned to me to a date to be fixed after April 2024 AND IT IS DIRECTED that my Associate notify each party by email of the adjourned date.
10.Costs of and incidental to this day be reserved.
11.My reasons for decision be transcribed and, when settled, be published to the parties and placed on the Court file.
AND IT IS NOTED BY THE COURT:
A.That, in the event that a party fails to attend a hearing or defaults in the filing of documents or things required of him/her, the Court may proceed to determine the matter without any input by the non-attending or defaulting party.
B.That the VCAT litigation has been listed for mid-2024 (estimated to take 5 days);
C.That this is the 24th court event for this proceeding.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Vrebac & Vrebac has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BENNETT J:
Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, Mr Levine, seeks leave to make an oral application for a separate trial to determine the matters between H Investments Pty Ltd and essentially the wife. The application is necessarily made by seeking leave because there is no written application to that effect before the court.
I have heard from counsel for the wife whose case it is that whilst the matter is prima facie a separate cause of action between the wife and H Investments it is, as many cases on a breakdown of relationship a matter, which must be looked at in the context of the broader history of the relationship between the husband and the wife and the relationships between the husband, wife and in this case the third party H Investments.
Mr Sweeney’s objection is not only as to the crossover of evidence but also to the financial impact of two trials on his client which he says his client can ill afford. There appears to be no controversy about that. Mr Ryan for the husband agrees that there ought not be two trials but does say it is a separate cause of action.
Ms Warlow-Shill for the interveners, being the parents of the wife, makes no particular submissions in respect of the proposal to have two separate trials.
Mr Sweeney also submits that the third party H Investments has made incomplete discovery and I have already made an uncontroversial ruling in relation to payment of an outstanding costs order.
In all of the circumstances I am not at all persuaded from what I have heard at the moment that two trials would be a good idea but I am also not satisfied that I can do justice to the parties on an application made without notice and, necessarily, the subject of submissions on the run. I decline leave to make an oral application for two separate trials.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett. Associate:
Dated: 30 March 2023
0
0
0