Wilder and Anson

[2010] FamCA 213

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILDER & ANSON [2010] FamCA 213

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – No appearance by applicant

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Wilder

RESPONDENT: Mr Anson

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 13268 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 2 March 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 2 March 2010

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. That the contraventions applications filed by the wife on 8 February 2010 and 16 February 2010 are struck out.

2. That my reasons be transcribed and be made available to the parties.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 13268 of 2007

MS WILDER

Applicant

And

MR ANSON

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This case involves two applications by the mother that the father be dealt with for contravening court orders made in 2006.  The mother filed a contravention application on 8 February 2010 and a subsequent application on 16 February 2010.  The first of those was listed for hearing on 23 February 2010 in the Senior Registrar’s list of cases.  The second application, although filed before the Senior Registrar’s hearing, was listed for hearing before me today.  In any event, at 10.05 this morning and again at 10.35, the mother has been called and has not appeared.  There is no correspondence on the file indicating that the mother could not be here today.  Importantly, when the matter was before the Senior Registrar on 23 February 2010, the mother appeared unrepresented but the court on that occasion had the assistance of Mr Dunstan as the independent children's lawyer, and the father was represented by his solicitor, Mr Lynch. 

2. I note from the orders on the file that the Senior Registrar adjourned the mother’s contravention application, filed on 8 February, to today, meaning that it was to be consolidated with the subsequent application that she filed.  In all other respects, the application about parenting matters was adjourned to the Senior Registrar’s list on 30 March 2010.  The father has attended today without legal representation and has asked me to strike out the two applications of the mother.  He does not apply for any costs or expenses, and had he done so, I would have made an order in his favour.  This is an indication of a party wasting the court’s time.  Not only were there two applications but the matter was obviously reviewed by the Senior Registrar with the assistance of lawyers, and it was clear at the end of that day that the matter was going to be heard today.

3. Whilst the father has been inconvenienced, so has the court.  Having regard to the fact that the mother has failed to attend and prosecute both of her applications, I strike both of them out.  The contravention applications filed on 8 February and 16 February are struck out.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  18 March 2010