❓ A parliamentary question regarding the freezing of a joint bank account by the Family Court of Western Australia and the Attorney General's response declining to intervene, citing the court's discretion and the availability of appeals.
AnsweredQoN 622Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that the joint savings account of Mr David Duvall and his daughter, Debbie, was frozen in June 2002, as a result of an application to the Family Court of Western Australia by the lawyer representing his former wife?
(2) Is it correct that the Family Court of Western Australia rules state that an application can only be granted by the Court if a prior order is served on the respondent?
(3) Is the Attorney General aware of Mr Duvall’s claim that the Family Court of Western Australia failed to serve such a prior order on him and his daughter?
(4) Is the Attorney General further aware that, at the time that the freezing of the accounts took place, Mr Duvall and his daughter were in Wales and that his daughter was left stranded when an automatic teller machine refused her access to the account in Conwy?
(5) Will the Attorney General institute inquiries to assess these claims and to determine how a Court could have failed in its duty?
(6) If so, will the Attorney General undertake to bring about immediate changes to ensure that, in future, no Court can act in this way?
(7) If the Court has acted outside its own rules in failing to serve the order prior to freezing of the funds, and given that the freezing of their joint and other family accounts is still in place, will the Attorney General take action to bring about the removal of the injunction granted by the court?
(2) Is it correct that the Family Court of Western Australia rules state that an application can only be granted by the Court if a prior order is served on the respondent?
(3) Is the Attorney General aware of Mr Duvall’s claim that the Family Court of Western Australia failed to serve such a prior order on him and his daughter?
(4) Is the Attorney General further aware that, at the time that the freezing of the accounts took place, Mr Duvall and his daughter were in Wales and that his daughter was left stranded when an automatic teller machine refused her access to the account in Conwy?
(5) Will the Attorney General institute inquiries to assess these claims and to determine how a Court could have failed in its duty?
(6) If so, will the Attorney General undertake to bring about immediate changes to ensure that, in future, no Court can act in this way?
(7) If the Court has acted outside its own rules in failing to serve the order prior to freezing of the funds, and given that the freezing of their joint and other family accounts is still in place, will the Attorney General take action to bring about the removal of the injunction granted by the court?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
25 February 2003
Response time
83 days
(2) No. The Family Court of Western Australia rules do not state that an application can only be granted by the Court if a prior order is served on the respondent. Ordinarily, the Court requires the serving of applications prior to the making of an order but on occasions will hear applications ex parte without the requirement of service of the application. (3) No. (4) No. (5) No. It is not the function of the Attorney General to interfere in the judicial process. There are avenues of appeal available to litigants who are aggrieved by a decision made by a Court. (6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(3) No. (4) No. (5) No. It is not the function of the Attorney General to interfere in the judicial process. There are avenues of appeal available to litigants who are aggrieved by a decision made by a Court. (6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(4) No. (5) No. It is not the function of the Attorney General to interfere in the judicial process. There are avenues of appeal available to litigants who are aggrieved by a decision made by a Court. (6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(5) No. It is not the function of the Attorney General to interfere in the judicial process. There are avenues of appeal available to litigants who are aggrieved by a decision made by a Court. (6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable.
(3) No. (4) No. (5) No. It is not the function of the Attorney General to interfere in the judicial process. There are avenues of appeal available to litigants who are aggrieved by a decision made by a Court. (6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(4) No. (5) No. It is not the function of the Attorney General to interfere in the judicial process. There are avenues of appeal available to litigants who are aggrieved by a decision made by a Court. (6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(5) No. It is not the function of the Attorney General to interfere in the judicial process. There are avenues of appeal available to litigants who are aggrieved by a decision made by a Court. (6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(6) No. It is important that the Family Court of Western Australia retains discretion to make ex parte orders. All other courts of similar jurisdiction have such discretion. (7) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.