Bale-Sutch and Bale-Sutch

In the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, Justice Bennett presided over proceedings concerning contravention applications filed by both Mrs Bale-Sutch (the applicant mother) and Mr Bale-Sutch (the respondent father). The dispute involved allegations by the mother that the father had failed to comply with parenting orders, specifically regarding child changeovers and over-holding the parties' two young sons. The father had also filed a contravention application, and both matters had been transferred to the Family Court.

The court was required to determine the appropriate course of action for the contravention applications, given the father's late arrival and the court's limited availability. Additionally, the court had to consider the mother's oral application for costs incurred due to adjournments on 7 May 2007 and the current day.

Justice Bennett reasoned that the contravention applications could not be dealt with on the day of the hearing due to the father's delayed arrival and the court's existing commitments. Consequently, the applications were adjourned for directions on 25 May 2007, with both parties ordered to attend personally. Regarding costs, the court applied section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975*, acknowledging the general rule that parties bear their own costs but retaining discretion to order otherwise. The court found that the father's failure to attend court on the correct date of 7 May 2007, resulting in wasted costs for the mother, and his inability to ensure the mother minimised her costs for the current day, justified an order for costs against him. The court also considered the nature of contravention applications, which are expected to proceed on their first return date.

The court ordered that the father pay the mother's costs thrown away on 7 May 2007 in the sum of $900 and her costs for the current day in the sum of $677, totalling $1,577. These costs were to be paid prior to 9 am on 25 May 2007. The contravention applications themselves were adjourned for directions on 25 May 2007, with the possibility of being heard on that day if the court's schedule permitted.