CLUNY & SKINNER
[2018] FamCA 15
•17 January 2018
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CLUNY & SKINNER | [2018] FamCA 15 |
| FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – where the husband was found guilty of contempt – where the husband was fined $30,000 payable to the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia within six months of that order – where the husband failed to make payment of the full amount of the fine within the ordered timeframe – where the husband remedied the breach within five days of the due date – where the Court did not exercise its discretion under r 21.03 to direct the Marshal to bring an application for contempt |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 112AP(3) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 21.03 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Cluny |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Skinner |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 812 | of | 2010 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 17 January 2018 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Kent J |
| HEARING DATE: | 17 January 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPLICANT: | In person |
| THE RESPONDENT: | In person |
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Cluny & Skinner has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
FILE NUMBER: BRC812/2010
| Ms Cluny |
Applicant
And
| Mr Skinner |
Respondent
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 10 July 2017 an order was made by way of sanction of Mr Skinner (“the husband”) for contempt that he pay a fine of $30,000 to the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia within six months of that order.
Reasons for judgment delivered on 28 April 2017 record the finding of the relevant contempt and reasons for judgment delivered on 31 July 2017 contain the reasons for the imposition of the subject sanction.
The period of six months provided for in the order of 10 July 2017 expired on 10 January 2018. At the expiration of that period the husband had not complied with the order. He paid, on the last day of the period being on 10 January 2018, only $300 and on the following day, 11 January 2018, a further $300.
Section 112AP(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides that the applicable Rules of Court may provide for practice and procedure as to charging a person with contempt and the hearing of that charge. Rule 21.03 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”) provides that the Court may direct the Marshal of the Court to bring an application for contempt pursuant to Part 21.1 of the Rules.
The matter was thus listed today, at the Court’s instigation, in order for the Court to consider making the relevant direction to the Marshal that the Marshal bring an application that the husband be dealt with for contempt.
The Court also caused Ms Cluny (“the wife”), the other party to the proceedings, to be given notice of the hearing, and the wife was in attendance.
On 15 January 2018 the husband filed an Application in a Case and a supporting affidavit seeking orders to the effect that the six month period provided for in the order of 10 July 2017 be extended until 6 June 2018. That application was listed for today.
However, on the same day as the filing of that application and affidavit, the husband paid the outstanding balance of the fine due, in the amount of $29,400. Yesterday, on 16 January 2018, the husband filed a Notice of Discontinuance of his application. Thus whilst it is that the husband was in flagrant breach of the order of 10 July 2017 by failing to pay the full amount of the fine on or before 10 January 2018, he remedied that breach within five days of the due date by meeting payment of the full amount on 15 January 2018.
In these circumstances I do not propose to exercise the discretion under r 21.03 to direct the Marshal to bring an application for contempt.
That noted, the husband needs to understand that this Court, as with any court, views non-compliance with its orders as a most serious matter. It is essential to the proper working of the Court system that Court orders are obeyed. All the more is that so when the subject non-compliance is with an order imposed by way of sanction for contempt of earlier orders. When that sanction is, as here, the imposition of a substantial fine, when the only alternative sanction would be imprisonment, it probably goes without saying that the husband faced the real likelihood of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment had he not remedied his non-compliance.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 17 January 2018, edited to correct grammatical errors and some infelicity of expression.
Associate:
Date: 19 January 2018
0
2