Entin & Entin

In the matter of *Entin & Entin*, Barry J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Husband seeking to restrain the Wife from making an application to the Child Support Agency that was inconsistent with prior agreements and court orders. The dispute centred on the Wife's alleged intention to seek child support in a manner that would disregard sums already paid by the Husband for airfares related to child contact, as stipulated in a United Kingdom order of 19 January 2006 and subsequent Australian Federal Magistrate Court orders.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the Wife from pursuing a child support application that would contravene her prior contractual agreement and court-ordered undertakings. This involved determining the enforceability of the agreement concerning the crediting of airfare payments against child support obligations and whether the Wife's proposed action constituted a breach of that agreement.

Barry J reasoned that the Wife was bound by her agreement to give full credit for airfare payments made by the Husband for child contact. The Court found that allowing the Wife to pursue a claim to the Child Support Agency that did not account for these payments would be inconsistent with her prior commitments and the spirit of the existing orders. Consequently, an injunction was issued restraining the Wife from making any application to the Child Support Agency that failed to provide full credit for the specified airfare sums. Additionally, a specific paragraph from a prior order of Registrar McGrath was discharged, and the proceedings were adjourned for further case management.