BEST & BEST (CONTEMPT) - [2015] FamCA 1164

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BEST & BEST (CONTEMPT)

[2015] FamCA 1164

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Where the applicant alleged that acts of perjury by the respondent and her legal representatives constituted contempt – Where the applicant alleged that the respondent’s non-compliance with her disclosure obligations constituted contempt – Where the applicant alleged contempt by the respondent of the Federal Circuit Court–Where there were no outstanding proceedings before the court other than the subject application – Where final parenting orders had been made in this court on 27 June 2014– Where the applicant wrongly sought to rely on Rule 13.08 for production of documents in a Contempt Application – Where the Contempt Application did not adequately specify the charge made against the Respondent –Where the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, or at all, that the respondent was in contempt of court – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 35, 112AP
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Part 21.10, Ch 13.

Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573
Keeley v Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162
Re Colina and Another; Ex parte Torney ((1999) FLC 92-872
M v M (1990) FLC, 92-106
S & B [1998] FamCA 129
S & L [1998] FamCA 147
Tate & Tate (2002) FLC 93-107

APPLICANT:

Mr Best

RESPONDENT:

Ms Best

FILE NUMBER:

WOC

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

1 September 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Le Poer Trench J

HEARING DATE:

25 June 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In Person

THE RESPONDENT:

In Person

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

The contempt application filed by Mr Best on 16 April 2015 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Best & Best (Contempt) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: WOC 91 of 2010

Mr Best

Applicant

And

Ms Best

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

introduction

Before the Court is an application by Mr Best (“the applicant”) alleging 16 items of contempt by the respondent, Ms Best (“the respondent”), and by her legal representatives.
Thirteen items of contempt relate to alleged acts of perjury by the respondent in giving “false and misleading” oral or sworn evidence.
One item alleges that the respondent acted in contempt of court by failing to comply with the Family Law Rules in relation to disclosure of documents.
Two items of contempt are allegations that the respondent’s legal representatives committed perjury by providing false and misleading oral and written evidence to the Court.
At pages 29 – 31 of the applicant’s supporting affidavit sworn on 12 April 2015 the applicant also seeks various additional orders including the referral of this matter to the Supreme Court; permission to make submissions to the High Court regarding alleged breaches of judicial duty and/or possible corrupt behaviour by a judicial officer of this Court; permission to issue subpoenas on various entities and witnesses; and inspect and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BEST & BEST (CONTEMPT)

Details

AGLC: BEST & BEST (CONTEMPT) [2015] FamCA 1164
Case: [2015] FamCA 1164
Decision Date: 1 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Best & Best (Contempt)*, Le Poer Trench J considered an application for contempt brought by Mr Best against an unnamed respondent. The precise nature of the underlying dispute that led to the contempt application was not detailed in the provided extract.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the conduct of the respondent constituted contempt of court, as alleged by Mr Best. This required the court to assess the evidence presented in support of the contempt application against the relevant legal standards for establishing contempt.

Le Poer Trench J ultimately dismissed Mr Best's contempt application. While the reasons for this dismissal are not elaborated in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court was not satisfied that the threshold for establishing contempt had been met. The court ordered that the contempt application filed by Mr Best on 16 April 2015 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED

The contempt application filed by Mr Best on 16 April 2015 is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.