WU & LEONG

[2015] FCCA 2962

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WU & LEONG [2015] FCCA 2962

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – All applications dismissed effectively for want of prosecution – parenting and property claims never properly presented – no prospect of the disordered proceedings being fairly or properly presented – ICL submission to dismiss all applications – excessive use of court resources – Court cannot conduct cases that are so ill-prepared and hear and determine them as well.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.17A

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, Division 13, r.13.03, A & B

AON Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Limited (2013) 250 CLR 303
Friar & Friar [2011] FamCAFC 71
Lindon v Commonwealth of Australia (No.2) (1996) 136 ALR 251
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.3) (2003) 2 AC 1

Applicant: MS WU

Respondent: MR LEONG

File Number: CAC 1783 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: 12 June 2015

Date of Last Submission: 19 June 2015

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 12 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant: Self represented

Counsel for the Respondent:

Solicitors for the Respondent: Self represented

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid ACT

ORDERS

1. All outstanding applications be dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 1783 of 2013

MS WU

Applicant

And

MR LEONG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are very long running parenting and property proceedings.  At the outset, the sterling labours of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) should be acknowledged.  Not only has she been her usual assiduous self in the parenting matter, but she has also sought to assist the self-represented parties to resolve the property matters.  Unfortunately, nothing has resolved. 

2. Worse still, in my view, there is no prospect of the matter being in a fit state to be heard now or at any foreseeable time in the future.  This is primarily because of the inability of the parties to communicate, which leads regularly to intransigent positions being adopted.  As well, a very significant factor in the Court’s doleful assessment is the Father’s/Husband’s consistent refusal to do what is required of him, such as to provide relevant documents, and very significantly, his abject refusal to pay his portion of the cost of the preparation of an expert psychiatric report – both of which he agrees to do but then fails to do so.  This report is now so far out of date as to be next to useless even if it did become available to the Court – which it has not and is unlikely ever to become available from the consulting psychiatrist due to the failure of the Father to…