Watson and Contadina

Case

[2011] FamCA 849


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WATSON & CONTADINA [2011] FamCA 849
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
APPLICANT: Mr Watson
RESPONDENT: Ms Contadina
FILE NUMBER: SYC 4027 of 2011
DATE DELIVERED: 24 October 2011
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Watts J
HEARING DATE: 24 October 2011

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Gayle Meredith & Associates
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lethbridge, SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: APA Lawyers

Orders

Orders made 24.10.2011

  1. The wife’s application for an adjournment as set out in paragraph 3 of her Application in a Case filed 26 September 2011 is dismissed. 

  2. On the basis that I will further consider the issue of whether or not the wife is to file and serve a financial statement on 17 January 2012 after I have decided whether or not the s 79A matter is dealt with as a discrete issue, orders are made in the terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 filed by the wife on 26 September 2011 as follows:

    1. The wife be granted an extension of time in which to bring this application for review, pursuant to rule 1.14(2) of the Family Law Rules.

    2. The order made by Registrar McNamara on either 30 or 31 August 2011 requiring the wife to file and serve a financial statement pursuant to rule 13.05 of the Family Law Rules by 21 October 2011 be set aside.

  3. I note Senior Counsel for the wife has indicated that the wife is a wealthy woman.

  4. I note that the husband’s application under s 79A is based on s 79A(1)(a) and in particular an asserted miscarriage of justice by reason of the suppression of evidence (including failure to disclose relevant information).

  5. Within 14 days the wife is to ask any further questions of and seek further particulars from the husband in relation to his application.

  6. By 2 December 2011 the husband respond to that request for further information and particulars.

  7. By 16 December 2011 both parties file and serve a written document setting out in dot point form the submissions that they intend to make at the hearing on 17 January 2012.

  8. I note that the court is not going to be determining the s 79A application on 17 January 2012 but rather whether or not that application will be divided into two separate hearings with the issue of whether there has been a miscarriage of justice being considered in a discrete preliminary hearing.

  9. Both parties’ costs of today be reserved. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Watson & Contadina is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4027 of 2011

Mr Watson

Applicant

And

Ms Contadina

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The wife has sought three interim orders which are listed before me today.  The second order sought is an order which would relieve the wife from filing and serving a financial statement until I had dealt with the matter which is set down for hearing before me on 17 January 2012.  In order 3, the wife seeks that I not deal with that application today but adjourn that application until 17 January. 

  2. Senior counsel for the wife submits that is a more cost effective way of approaching the matter.  I have expressed the view in discussion with senior counsel that I cannot agree with that.  If we leave it until 17 January to have an argument about whether or not it would be appropriate for the wife to file a financial statement, if the husband was successful in convincing me that it was appropriate, then that would abort the proceedings which are otherwise listed before me on 17 January. 

  3. The parties are here today.  They should be in a position to argue this matter given it is set down before me today, amongst other things, to argue that matter today.

  4. I dismiss the application for the adjournment.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 24 October 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  2 November 2011

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Costs

  • Discovery

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0