Cluny and Skinner (No 3)

In *Cluny and Skinner (No 3)*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband seeking a stay of a term of imprisonment imposed for contempt of court and contravention of orders. The husband had been found guilty of contempt under s 112AP and contravention under s 112AD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) on 28 April 2017. He was given two years to remedy his contraventions, which involved a debt of approximately $521,000 plus interest, or face a three-month term of imprisonment. By July 2019, he had paid less than $1,000 towards this debt.

The legal issues before the court were whether to grant a stay of the imprisonment order, conditional upon the husband paying $25,000 within seven days and $6,000 per month thereafter, and whether the court had the power under s 112AK of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to vary or discharge the s 112AD order. The husband did not propose to appeal the original decision.

Kent J reasoned that the husband's proposal to remedy his contraventions would take approximately seven years, even without considering accruing interest or his child support obligations. His Honour found that the husband was attempting to impermissibly revisit the determination of the sanction already imposed, and that there was no legitimate basis to stay the orders for sanction. Furthermore, the husband failed to establish any basis for the court to exercise its power under s 112AK to vary or discharge the s 112AD order.

Consequently, the husband's application in a case filed on 16 August 2019 was dismissed. The court ordered that there be no further stay of the imprisonment order made on 1 August 2019 (amended 2 August 2019), and the husband's three-month term of imprisonment was to commence immediately, continuing until 10:00 am on 23 November 2019. A Warrant of Commitment was ordered to issue forthwith.