CAMPBELL and LOUIS (CONTEMPT) - [2021] FCWA 34

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: CAMPBELL and LOUIS (CONTEMPT) [2021] FCWA 34
CORAM: MONCRIEFF J
HEARD: 19, 20 OCTOBER & 16 NOVEMBER 2020
DELIVERED : 10 MARCH 2021
FILE NO/S: PTW 4513 of 2009
BETWEEN: MS CAMPBELL
Applicant
AND
MR LOUIS
Respondent

Catchwords:

CONTEMPT – Where the alleged contemnor has systematically and deliberately contravened orders restraining him from dealing with superannuation and property interests consistently and failed to comply with orders for the financial support of the applicant – where 14 of the 15 alleged contraventions are found proven to the requisite standard of proof – where the contraventions so found constitute a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr R Hooper SC
Respondent	:	Self Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	FMD Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	Self Represented Litigant

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Campbell and Louis [2018] FCWA 113
Ganem v Ganem (No 2) [2013] FamCA 257
Re F Litigants In Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93‑072
Rutherford v The Marshal of the Family Court of Australia (1999) FLC 92‑866

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Campbell and Louis has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 243(8)(g) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

1The Court is called upon to determine an application for contempt brought by [Ms Campbell], the applicant in this application and the primary proceedings between the parties, and [Mr Louis], the respondent.
2The contempt application alleges breaches of orders made in the course of proceedings between the parties which commenced on 31 August 2009 following the demise of their de facto relationship that existed between April 1999 and their date of final separation [in] January 2008.
3The proceedings have been the subject of numerous interlocutory orders and a trial which ran before me over 8 days in October and November 2017.
4On 25 June 2018, I both published reasons for judgment (Campbell and Louis [2018] FCWA 113) and made orders reflecting those reasons.
5The respondent subsequently appealed the orders so made, however his appeal was unsuccessful.
6Earlier in the course of proceedings and at a time when O’Brien J was managing the proceedings his Honour also, for the reasons he gave on various occasions, made orders that are relevant for the purpose of this application.
7The orders the subject of the application for contempt provide as follows:

Orders dated 2 December 2016

(Throughout these reasons, unless otherwise specified, all errors and emphasis in extracts are as in original).

1Until further order of the Court, and save and except with the prior written consent of the Applicant, [MS CAMPBELL], the Respondent, [MR LOUIS] be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining him from:

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 CAMPBELL and LOUIS (CONTEMPT)

Details

AGLC: CAMPBELL and LOUIS (CONTEMPT) [2021] FCWA 34
Case: [2021] FCWA 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell and Louis before the Family Court of Western Australia involved an application for contempt brought by Ms Campbell against Mr Louis, following numerous breaches of court orders made during their protracted legal proceedings. Mr Louis, who has been self-represented throughout the proceedings, was alleged to have deliberately and intentionally contravened a number of orders relating to financial transactions and property interests. The court heard evidence over several days and ultimately found fourteen out of fifteen alleged breaches to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, constituting a flagrant challenge to the authority of the court. The court found that Mr Louis had systematically withdrawn funds from a superannuation account and used them for personal expenses, in breach of specific court orders. He was also found to have facilitated the sale of a property, in breach of orders that restrained him from dealing with certain assets without the consent of Ms Campbell. Furthermore, the court found that Mr Louis had failed to pay spousal maintenance as ordered, despite having the financial means to do so. In light of these findings, the court considered the appropriate sentence for Mr Louis, who has been held in contempt of court. The court considered factors such as the deliberate nature of the breaches, the significant financial impact on Ms Campbell, and the need to uphold the authority of the court. Ultimately, the court determined that Mr Louis's conduct warranted a punishment that would serve as a deterrent, while also taking into account the unique circumstances of the case. The court found that the contempt proceedings were a flagrant challenge to the authority of the court and imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the breaches. The final orders of the court addressed the specific breaches found, and outlined the consequences for Mr Louis, including potential fines and imprisonment. The court also emphasised the importance of compliance with court orders and the need for all parties to respect the authority of the court in family law matters.

Orders