Vrettos and Tourna

[2014] FamCA 437

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VRETTOS & TOURNA [2014] FamCA 437

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Dismissal on the basis of absence of prosecution.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Vrettos

RESPONDENT: Ms Tourna

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6727 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 20 May 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 20 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That the application filed on 9 November 2012 and the response thereto filed 1 February 2013 are dismissed.

2. That the reasons this day be transcribed and be placed on the court file.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Vrettos & Tourna 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: SYC 672 of 2012

Mr Vrettos

Applicant

And

Ms Tourna

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 9 November 2012 Mr Vrettos, (“the father”) filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court in Sydney seeking a variety of parenting orders in relation to his child, S.  On 1 February 2013 the wife filed a response disputing that the applicant should have any time with the child at all.  For reasons which are not at all clear to me the proceedings were transferred to this court by the then Federal Magistrates Court.  I had the matter before me on 7 February where I enlisted it for trial.  I made orders for the case to be heard as a contested hearing.  On 23 March 2014, a person who is described in an email as [DE] wrote to the court indicating that:

   I’m writing to inform you that [the father] – due to financial problems, he will not be able to continue his case through the Family Court, but he will – has already made arrangements and efforts through a convention.  [The father] appreciates your interest in the case.   Kind regards, his son, [Mr T].

2. There has been no appearance of the wife in these proceedings.  The email to which I have just referred does not appear to have been copied into her.  But I do recall in the hearing that I conducted on 7 February that she appeared by telephone and was mightily unimpressed about having to be involved at all.  It seemed, at that stage, that the father was still in Greece.  There is a further email on the file from around that time indicating that the father was living in a little village near Region B in Greece and was very difficult to be communicated with. 

3. It would appear that there is no further involvement needed of the court.  The application filed on 9 November 2012, and the response filed on 1 March – 1 February 2013 are both dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 20 May 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  20 June 2014