Wyatt and Oliver

[2012] FamCA 428

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WYATT & OLIVER [2012] FamCA 428

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave granted to apply for orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Wyatt

RESPONDENT: Mr Oliver

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2434 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 29 May 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 29 May 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Kayler-Thomson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Forte Family Lawyer

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr O’Connell

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Macpherson & Kelley

Orders

1. That leave be granted to the applicant and the respondent pursuant to s 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to apply for orders pursuant to s 90SM of the Act.

2. That the requirement for the parties to attend a conciliation conference pursuant to s 90SM(9) of the Act be dispensed with and it is noted that the parties propose to convene a private mediation in an endeavour to reach agreement about the division of their property interest.

3. That the proceedings be listed for mention before the Honourable Justice Cronin on Thursday 18 October 2012 at 9.00am.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Wyatt & Oliver has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2434 of 2012

Mr Wyatt

Applicant

And

Mr Oliver

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by both parties for leave to bring proceedings for property settlement under Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) arising out of the conclusion of their de facto relationship. The requirement is that they bring the proceedings within two years of the conclusion of that relationship. Both parties are still working amicably together and they have been through a collaborative law process and time has run against them. It is common ground that leave should be granted to bring the application and this is a case where the parties would otherwise be left in limbo. I am satisfied in the circumstances it is appropriate to give them that leave.

2. The second issue is whether or not they should attend a conciliation conference.  There is a pool of about $3 million at stake in this case with a gross value of assets of something like $7 million.  Most importantly, the parties have had considerable discussions in the collaborative law process, so no doubt they know exactly what they are all talking about and accordingly it seems more appropriate that they work out, with the assistance of external providers, a solution to their problem rather than the court try to start from a position with very limited resources.

3. On that basis, the parties having agreed to go to mediation pursuant to s 90SM(9) of the Act, I waive the requirement that they attend a conciliation conference.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 29 May 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  7 June 2012