Wells and Roberts

[2008] FamCA 1080

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WELLS & ROBERTS [2008] FamCA 1080

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Determination of an application for adjournment having regard to a purported application pursuant to the Hague Convention

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Wells

RESPONDENT: Ms Roberts

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3493 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 8 December 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: The Hon. Justice Rose

HEARING DATE: 8 & 9 December 2008

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT IN PERSON: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:	M Cleary
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Watts McCray
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Rowley & Associates

Orders

1. That in relation to Exhibit 6 the application of the father for an adjournment of the proceedings is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC3493 of 2007

MR WELLS

Applicant

And

MS ROBERTS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. With regard to the email passing between the father and the independent children’s lawyer dated 3 December 2008 will be marked Exhibit 6.

2. Having read Exhibit 6, may I make it also clear that my attention has not been drawn to any application which may have been made by the Central Authority pursuant to the Hague Convention and the appropriate Regulations, nor has my attention been drawn to any notice received from the Central Authority in relation to any proposed application.

3. Consequently, the basis upon which the father seeks an adjournment referred to in Exhibit 6 has no foundation.

4. On the evidence before me, and the lack of any material with which I have been furnished in relation to an actual or proposed Hague Convention application, the father’s application for an adjournment, referred to in Exhibit 6 is refused.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Rose

Associate: 

Date:  11 December 2008