Zong & Lim (No 5)

[2021] FCCA 1965

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zong & Lim (No 5) [2021] FCCA 1965

File number(s):	BRC 8160 of 2014
Judgment of:	JUDGE COATES
Date of judgment:	2 August 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting – application brought by father – father seeks to reopen matters already decided – dismissed.
Number of paragraphs:	12
Date of last submission/s:	2 August 2021
Date of hearing:	2 August 2021
Place:	Brisbane
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Lander Solicitors QLD
Respondent:	Self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms S. Fraser
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Julie Harrington Solicitor

ORDERS

BRC 8160 of 2014

BETWEEN:

MS ZONG

Applicant

AND:

MR LIM

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE COATES
DATE OF ORDER:	2 AUGUST 2021

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.That the Application in a Case filed on 19 April 2021 be dismissed.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Zong & Lim (No 5) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE COATES:
This judgment was delivered orally and has been corrected for written comprehension.

1. This is a parenting matter concerning a nine-year-old child.

2. The application is brought by the father.

3. The father lives in Perth, and the mother lives in Brisbane, and the child has not seen the father for about 10-months or so.

4. I have previously made decisions upon applications by the father which had included vacation of previous trial dates.

5. I also decided, against the father’s application, that the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Julie Harrington, will remain in the matter.

6. The father wants to see his child, and I understand that.

7. A trial for that very question is set next month.

8. The father has filed a new application seeking to go over previous decisions.

9. He has already appealed the matter about the Independent Children’s Lawyer and is awaiting a decision from the Full Court.

10. Both the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose any further application of this nature being heard, both parties stating that the best way forward is to hear the matter at trial.

11. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the father’s application on the basis that the trial will be heard next month.

12. On that basis, I decline to deal with the matter, and we will conduct the trial on the dates already set.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Coates.

Associate:

Dated:       24 August 2021