FIORE & FIORE

[2015] FamCA 559

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FIORE & FIORE [2015] FamCA 559

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PARENTING — refusal to compel mother to return children to town from which she removed children unilaterally — best interests — high conflict — costs

APPLICANT: Mr Fiore

RESPONDENT: Ms Fiore

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4325 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 3 June 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 3 June 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Trim

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ascot Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Jardine

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: MB Law

Orders

IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT:

1. That the children B born … 2011 (“B”) and C born … 2013 (“C”) spend time with the father from 4.00 pm on Wednesday 10 June 2015, and thereafter revert to the following Wednesday and fortnightly Wednesdays thereafter.

2. That C spend time with the father from 5.00 pm Saturday 13 June 2015 until 5.00 pm on Sunday 14 June 2015, and 5.00 pm on Saturday 27 June 2015 until 5.00 pm on Sunday 28 June 2015.

3. That from Friday 10 July 2015 C spend time with the father from 5.00 pm on Friday until 5.00 pm on Sunday (two nights later), each alternate weekend thereafter for this same period of time.

4. The parties and children attend upon Mr D for the purpose of an updated Family Report at the father’s expense, subject to further Order of the Court and the father deposit the required funds for this report into his lawyer’s trust account prior to the first interview.

5. That the matter is adjourned to 23 September 2015 at 10.00am for a half day hearing on the issue of further interim parenting arrangements to apply pending the final hearing of this matter with Mr D possibly being cross-examined that morning.

6. That the applicant/respondent make file and serve any further affidavit in regards to residence by no later than 4.00 p.m.:

   (a)       As to the husband, on 10 September 2015;

   (b)       As to the wife, on 14 September 2015;

7. The independent children’s lawyer publish to each other party to the proceedings his/her preliminary view of what orders should be made by the learned Senior Registrar.

8. That in the event that the matter settles or cannot proceed for any reason solicitors are to immediately advise the Assistant to the Senior Registrar – email ….

9. That the parties are to have a telephone link with the Senior Registrar on Wednesday 16 September 2015 at 10.00 a.m. to confirm compliance with the preceding orders.

10. That there will be liberty to all parties to list the matter for mention before the Senior Registrar on 24 hours notice.

11. That each of the parties prepare file and serve on the other party an Outline of Case Document in bullet point form and minute of orders sought by no later than 4.00 p.m. on 21 September 2015.

12. The independent children’s lawyer and the parties give their best endeavours to come to an agreement regarding further interim parenting issues shortly before the next scheduled court date, to potentially avoid the need for that hearing to proceed.

13. IT IS REQUESTED that the independent children’s lawyer cause a subpoena to issue to produce documents directed to E Kindergarten, F Town, Victoria and to F Town Education Centre, F Town, Victoria requiring production of enrolment forms and personal records concerning the children, such subpoena to be returnable no later than 15 July 2015.

14. The husband make a contribution to the wife’s costs of and incidental to this day fixed in the sum of $600 and payable within 21 days.

15. My reasons this day be transcribed and when settled a copy be placed on the Court file and be made available to the parties.

16. Pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B the particulars and the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those particulars are included in these orders.

    IT IS DIRECTED THAT:

17. The signed minute of interim consent be marked Exhibit “A” and remain on the Court file.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fiore & Fiore 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4325 of 2014

Mr Fiore

Applicant

And

Ms Fiore

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

1. This matter comes before me in the judicial duty list. It is the return date of an application in a case filed on behalf of the father on 1 May 2015, in which he seeks a raft of orders, the most significant of which is that within seven days the mother relocate the children from where they currently live in F Town to G Town, where he resides and where the children resided until approximately 30 January 2015. The children are B, who is four and a half years old, and C, who is two years and three months old. The father is 38 years of age. He is a panel beater. He lives in G Town, as does his family. The wife is 38 years of age. She is not employed outside the home. She has been living in F Town with her parents since the end of January 2015. The parties married in 2008 and they separated in approximately September 2013. The husband moved out of the former family home in October 2013.

2. These reasons will, of necessity, be brief and I reserve the right to augment them subsequently.

3. The principal proceedings were initiated in the Federal Circuit Court in 2014. They remained in the Federal Circuit Court until the matter was transferred to this Court at the point of a final hearing in February 2014. Along the way, and in particular before Judge Turner on 9 July 2014, there were parenting orders made with which the father was not satisfied, but which he has said through his counsel and on affidavit he thought he would have to accept. He deposes to not being in a position to agitate for better parenting orders until what he thought would be the final hearing on 12 February 2015.

4. As I have indicated, on 30 January 2015 the mother and the children left G Town and went to live in F Town. The mother’s parents live in F Town. The mother did not tell the father directly, or through solicitors, that she and the children were moving to F Town. Her evidence in the witness box was that she didn’t tell the father because she thought that she would tell him on the occasion of the conciliation conference, which was to be convened by Registrar Sikiotis, the wife says, on 5 February 2015. There are some notes which I can see which indicate that the conciliation conference may have been as late as 12 February 2015. In any event, the wife concedes that there was at least a week when the father would have thought that the children were living in G Town because she hadn’t advised him otherwise.

5. The father and the mother have parental responsibility for the children. Accordingly, it was the mother’s responsibility to advise the father that she that she failed to do so does not reflect well on the mother.

6. One of the orders made by Judge Turner was that the parties attend upon Mr D, psychologist, for the purpose of preparation of a report. It’s not clear whether that would have been a report for a final hearing or an interim hearing. Nonetheless, a report was generated dated 5 August 2014, and it is at first reading an informative and insightful document. I note that it has not been tested in cross examination. Before me neither counsel for the parties sought that Mr D be cross examined.

7. Both the mother and the father were cross examined, and whilst I limited the time, the cross examination was of approximately 30 to 40 minutes each.

8. Mr D paints a picture which is largely consistent with my impression of the parties, up to a point. He describes the mother as being, I would summarise, emotionally vulnerable and the husband as being not vulnerable, but capable and willing to take on a parenting role with the children post separation that appears to be in excess of what he took on during the marriage. Counsel for the husband describes the report as portraying his client in a “particularly glowing” position, and highlighting the “impaired insight of the mother”. I think it’s fair to say that that would have been the impression of the mother when she read the report.

9. As I’ve indicated, the report is an internally consistent, informative document. Mr D gave consideration as to what should happen in the parenting matter which is very helpful, and there appears at paragraphs [37]–[41] the following:

   [37] […] the emotions, the conflict and the different points along the post separation continuum, blur issues in relation to the children and what is best for them. [Mrs Fiore] is advocating a very conservative approach, that is, that [C] should come into synchrony with [B’s] time with his father by the time she turns two years of age and then the arrangement should stay in place until both children are in primary school. She emphasizes the need for structure, routine and predictability. I suspect maintaining structure, routine and predictability is of considerable assistance to her, at a time when life feels very much out of control and disorganized. Her proposal is, from my perspective, too conservative and effectively limits the amount of time that the children have available with their father for him to care for and meaningfully participate in their lives. The aim has to be to encourage more active participation by the children in the life of their father and his family, that is minimize loss in the broader sense, whilst maximising the time that the children spend with both parents in a manner that is developmentally sensitive to their age and stage. The children appear to be well cared for by their father, they go to him for comfort, they feel secure, they actively seek out his affection, he seems in tune and he is emotionally available. It may well be that in part, this all reflects on his transition through the process of separation and him being at a very different point of optimism. It may also reflect something about him having re-evaluated his life with the children becoming a priority.

   [38] Accordingly, my recommendation is that depending on [Mr Fiore’s] continued availability, that the children should be spending time with their father for extended periods during the day on Wednesday each week so that he has a full day to care for and be involved with them. The current weekend arrangement should probably remain in place as it is the least uncertain alternative for [C], but from the time that she turns two, there should be an introduction of overnight stays, initially from Saturday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. every alternate weekend, and after four such weekends, from Saturday morning until Sunday night. After eight alternate weekends, this arrangement should extend from Friday afternoon until Sunday evening; until then [B] should continue as he is now. By the commencement of term 2, 2015, both children should be seeing their father from a Friday night until a Monday morning, and a night overnight midweek.

   [39] I looked at the Kindergarten timetable for [G Town Kindergarten] where the children will attend. On the presumption that the same sessions will be offered in 2015 and beyond, it makes sense for the children to be enrolled in the [H Program] (Monday 0830 to 1200; Wednesday 1130 to 1630; Friday 0830 to 1500) so that [Mr Fiore] can collect the children at the completion of Kindergarten/school on Friday and return them to Kindergarten/school on Monday. I would also suggest at that time there should be an introduction of an overnight stay midweek from the completion of Kindergarten on the Wednesday with a return to their mother at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday if [Mr Fiore’s] work allows.

   [40] It is reasonable from the beginning of 2016 that the children would spend five nights in a fourteen-night cycle with their father spanning an alternate weekend (either Friday night to Monday morning or Thursday night until Monday morning in one week) and then depending on the weekend arrangement, one or two nights overnight during that two-week period.

   [41] This recommendation still provides for the opportunity for structure and predictable routine, but more active involvement by their father in the children’s lives. When the children attend primary school there should be a sharing of holidays. Until that time holiday periods should not extend beyond five days in a single period and even then not until term 2 of 2015. There should be the usual arrangements for Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, public holidays and other significant dates.

10. By virtue of the mother having relocated to F Town, the progression of time envisaged by Mr D did not take place. It was never agreed that the progression of time as recommended by Mr D would take place, but it’s undoubtedly a consequence of her unilateral move to F Town that it has not.

11. The parties were in Court yesterday and, during the course of the day, managed to negotiate orders which they sought by consent, dealing with the special days that the children have. The issue before me today is whether or not the mother will be required to move back to G Town.

12. On the husband’s proposal, that would be that the mother return to G Town to take up residence in a two bedroom investment property which is fully furnished and available for occupation by her and the children, and the children, or at least B, could return to his former Kindergarten. The father seeks a progression of time in accordance with Mr D’s report. That would involve immediately increasing C’s time with the father to overnight. At the moment, B spends time with the father each alternate Friday from 5.00 pm until Sunday at 5.00 pm, and C spends time with the father and B from 9.30 am on Sunday to 5.00 pm on Sunday. Both children spend time with the father between 4.00 and 7.00 pm on alternate Wednesdays.

13. The mother’s proposal to the Court was to adopt what I expressed as a preliminary view, which was that, for the next two fortnightly periods, C’s time would be increased to 5.00 pm Saturday to 5.00 pm Sunday, thereby incorporating an overnight. Thereafter, C would accompany B for precisely the same times as he currently goes, which is each alternate Friday from 5.00 pm to Sunday at 5.00 pm. The changeover point I had indicated may remain McDonald’s in G Town, but the wife sought today, at least, a change to Castlemaine.

14. It is important that the parties return to see Mr D. Mr D’s report is capable of being read on a going-forward basis, but there are two things that make me think that the parties would be best off seeing him again. First of all, the children are very young. My immediate impression is that the parties are somewhat immature, fixed in their views. I am satisfied after having seen both of them and having heard from their counsel making submissions on instructions, that they are focused more on adult matters than being child focused. I have no doubt that the parties could be assisted by further insights by Mr D and would be advantaged by having an opportunity to speak with Mr D. Mr D’s role in writing a report will be one of assessment and not one of therapy. But once the parties are assessed, how they then deal with the upshot of that assessment and the professional opinion contained in the assessment is informative and illuminating for the court.

15. Quite frankly, these parents need all the help they can get before their litigation in relation to the children becomes bogged down and each becomes entrenched in positions from which they cannot retreat and in which the children will suffer. I say this in the context of it now being apparent that the proceedings in relation to property matters will not be short. I don’t know what the husband’s financial situation is, but in his recent affidavit material he refers to his mother being an intervener in the proceedings, because his mother now claims ownership or entitlements in real estate which is registered in the name of the husband. That includes the home in which the husband’s mother lives and two commercial properties out of which his mother runs a business in which he is employed. It doesn’t look to me like the property proceedings will be concluded any time soon, and I don’t want the conflicts in relation to property to feature significantly in the parties’ positions in relation to parenting arrangements.

16. Subject to Mr D’s evidence not being tested, it appears that his opinion as at August 2014 would have been fairly accurate and consistent with the best interests of the children. However a number of matters have intervened. First of all, the mother decided unilaterally to move to F Town, without telling the father. In fact, the father had earlier moved residence from G Town to Suburb I without telling the mother. He said that he advised the mother during a changeover that he would thereafter be living in Suburb I, but hadn’t bothered to tell her before that. It is not quite as bad as the mother’s non-disclosure of her move to F Town but also reflects poorly on the father.

17. The mother says that her move to F Town was motivated by a number of factors. She said that she could ill afford to remain living in the large former matrimonial home at G Town. There seems to be some justification for that view. The husband, it appears from exhibit “W1”, had on 31 March 2014 caused his solicitors to write to the solicitors for the wife, indicating that henceforth the husband would cease to pay the electricity connection, water, telephone and insurance for the former matrimonial home, and would no longer be paying the registration on a vintage motor vehicle or a 4WD motor vehicle.

18. Additionally, the mother’s mobile telephone account would no longer be paid by the father, and neither would her health insurance. The letter is silent as to the children’s health insurance. At the time of this letter, the father was in another relationship with a former girlfriend, and the father may have intended to place her on the medical insurance in the place of the mother. The mother also said that she moved to G Town because her intervention order against the father had run out and she did not want him to come around to the house any more. There was some force in the mother’s last comment.

19. When the husband was cross examined, he admitted that he had visited the former family home without notice to or permission of the mother, on one occasion leaving a gift for each child respectively on B’s bed and in C’s cot without consultation with the mother. It is a superficially pleasant thing for the father to leave gifts for the children. I would consider it, however, somewhat unsettling for a mother to come home and find that the father had been in the children’s bedroom unannounced and without her permission. In cross examination, the father said, “I went to the family home. It was my home just as much as anyone’s”. When I asked why he didn’t ask the mother’s permission to go to the home (in light of that being where the mother and children live) he said, “I didn’t see why I had to”.

20. The manner in which Mr D describes the husband in the report of 5 August 2014 is consistent with my observation of the husband, save that, it appears to me, in the intervening period facts and matters have transpired from which I have formed an impression of the husband as being somewhat inflexible and fixed in his views. He’s adult focused in as much as he perceives that the mother wrongly moved to F Town and should be brought back to G Town. In forming that view, though, it seems that he gives little consideration to the impact of the move on the mother and, through her, on the children. He gives little consideration to the difficulties experienced by the mother as discussed in Mr D’s report. In spite of having access to Mr D’s analysis of the mother’s viewpoint, he shows little empathy and appears disinclined to consider her perspective. My impression is that the father is disinclined to consider the mother’s perspective. He presented as self-satisfied and self-justifying. The father has an appreciation that he has been assessed by Mr D as having coped better with the separation and as having been commended for being available for the children. There seemed to be a sense of superiority about the father’s view of himself. However, I did not detect any empathy for the mother’s position which, in my impression, is quite different.

1. The children would probably adjust to wherever the mother was content to be, but one cannot read the family report or read her affidavit material and honestly form the view that the mother is happy, or would be happy relocating back to G Town. Likewise, in relation to the time he seeks with the children, he said he wants to adhere to the report of Mr D as to the progression. He couldn’t say what the progression was and, when he finally recalled what the progression was, it was less generous over the next 10 weeks than the mother was prepared to give him before me today.

2. In all parenting proceedings, I regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration. The ambit of these proceedings is set by the applications of the parties. The father wants the mother to be required to move back to G Town, and he wants greater time with the children on an ongoing basis than mother is prepared to allow.

3. There are primary considerations, being the need to protect the children from family violence and physical and emotional harm, and also the benefit of the children having a meaningful relationship with each parent. It’s the latter of the primary considerations which is in the forefront of this application.

4. To inform application of the primary considerations there are numerous additional considerations, many of which are most plausibly considered at the stage of a final hearing than at an interim hearing when it’s not possible for me to make findings about many facts. I have been assisted by being able to observe each of the parties in cross examination today.

5. The children no doubt would like to see their father, and my impression is that their views would be that they would like to see him probably more than they are seeing him now. I take that into account.

6. I take into account that the effect of the orders sought by the father would be considerable personal upheaval for the mother to move back to G Town, but that the move would mean that the children are located close to his residence.

7. I am troubled by the capacity which each parent shows in relation to parenting the children and being unable to overcome the disappointment that they feel towards the other. This is something that they will need to work on quite significantly. The high level of parental conflict plays out in various ways, which is deleterious to the children. The mother, for instance, recently refused to hand B over to spend time with the father when the father had not attended McDonald’s to collect B at the appointed time. Instead, the paternal grandmother was there with the father’s new partner, Ms J. The mother considered that she was entitled not to hand B over. She told the paternal grandmother so in B’s presence. This was based on her incorrect view that an order requiring the father to be in “substantial attendance” required him to be personally present during changeover times. In the witness box the mother could not adequately explain “substantial attendance”.

8. There is no doubt that the father should have been at the changeover at McDonald’s. Nonetheless, there’s little doubt in my mind that the mother acted otherwise than in the best interests B. There would have been no harm to B to go with the paternal grandparent.

9. The mother alleges that the father has regularly been late for changeovers. In the witness box, he conceded only that he had been 10 minutes late on some occasions, several hours late on one occasion and a day late on another occasion. Dealing with the last of the occasions, he said that B had fallen ill during a spend time period, and he told the mother by text that B might not be returned. He said he sent photographs of B to the mother. I can only assume that the photos would have been more upsetting than they were informative. The father said that he could not transport B. However, he has a five-seat car. B is three years old. I am satisfied that he could have driven the car and had Ms J in the back looking after B. Conversely, Ms J could have driven the car and the father could have sat with B, nursing him all the way back to G Town where B could be returned to the mother. The father said he just decided not to do it. In my assessment, he was as lacking in his child-focus in this incident as the mother was when she refused to hand B over to the paternal grandmother just recently.

10. These incidents are not about substantial attendance and a child being sick. They are manifestations of entrenched conflict between the parents which has the capacity to impact very negatively on the children.

11. Having had the benefit of reading the material and hearing evidence by and cross examination of each parent in the witness box, I am satisfied that there should be a progression of time with the father on an interim basis. I am satisfied that C’s time should be brought into line with B’s as soon as possible.

12. Mr D’s recommendations were not implemented within the timeframe contemplated by him. I consider it appropriate to implement an accelerated program so that there will, consistently with the mother’s position, be time for C, over the next two fortnightly periods, from 5.00 pm Saturday to 5.00 pm Sunday and thereafter her times will be as B’s are now, namely each alternate Friday from 5.00 pm to Sunday at 5.00 pm.

13. I will require the parties to attend upon Mr D for a further assessment and report. This is to be at the husband’s sole expense, subject to any further order of the court. Money should be deposited with his solicitors prior to Mr D’s interview and for that purpose, the solicitors will have to obtain a quote from Mr D about his fees.

14. I am informed by counsel for the father that they can see Mr D on 26 August 2015. The matter can then return to court in September 2015 before the Senior Registrar on a date to be fixed. The parties should be in a position to cross examine Mr D early in the morning on that day.

15. At that stage the Court will have the benefit of seeing Mr D’s further report and I would contemplate that there may be some further increase in the time that the children can spend with the father.

16. At the moment the father spends time with the children each alternate Wednesday from 4.00 to 7.00 pm. It is clear that Mr D thought that time could be extended to Thursday so it would be overnight. That contemplation by Mr D was predicated thus: “Depending on [Mr Fiore’s] continued availability”. The Wednesday could also commence much earlier in the day, because the father had started to volunteer at B’s Kindergarten on Wednesday.

17. When Mr D refers to the availability of Mr Fiore, what I take Mr D to have meant was if the then physical proximity of the parties continued. Clearly it didn’t, by virtue of the mother’s relocation to F Town. I have extracted paragraph 39 of Mr D’s report earlier in these reasons. Counsel for the husband urged me to find that Mr D was invested in G Town Kindergarten to the point that he considered that he wanted B to continue at G Town Kindergarten. Mr D was, in my view, just performing his normal tasks in a thorough way, and trying to root his recommendations in practicalities for the parties when he looked at the timetables for G Town Kindergarten.

18. It may be that in September 2015 when the Senior Registrar looks at the matter, armed with further insights by Mr D that he considers that the Wednesday time can be enlarged. For instance, the husband may travel to F Town to see the children at Kindergarten during that day. For the wife’s part, although she appeared somewhat uncomfortable, she said that she would encourage the father to participate in the children’s Kindergarten life in F Town, and it may be that that happens. In the meantime, I determine the matter as I have indicated and without an extension of Wednesday time. I require the parties to prepare minutes to that effect.

19. There are certain tasks for the independent children’s lawyer which I had contemplated yesterday and which should now be undertaken. The independent children’s lawyer should use their best endeavours to see if the parties can reach some agreement which obviates the need for any time before the Senior Registrar in September 2015.

20. The independent children’s lawyer should cause production at court of the enrolment forms and the parents’ details and contact details, as provided by the wife, to the E Kindergarten at F Town where B is attending, and also to the school at which the mother has enrolled B for 2016, being the F Town Education Centre.

21. The mother says that she has attended some counselling in G Town, but, necessarily, that is not ongoing, because she is now living in F Town. She says being in the close environment of her parents “is like therapy in itself”, but I doubt if that is what Mr D would consider is adequate, having regard to the final paragraph of his report from August 2014, which reads:

    I would encourage [Mr & Mrs Fiore] to consider the possibility of seeking some assistance around the implementation of these Orders in order to maintain a clear boundary around that which is spousal conflict and that which important parental conversation and agreement.

    It looks to me like the parents need some fairly intensive therapeutic counselling if matters are going to be positive for the children moving forward.

22. I am satisfied that the parenting arrangements which I have discussed with the parties are consistent with the children’s interests.

Costs

1. There is an application by the wife that the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to today, fixed in the sum of $1024. The wife relies on her financial situation which, as I understand it, is that she is residing with her parents, in receipt of a very modest amount of child support and social security benefits. Neither party is in receipt of legal aid. Primarily, I discern that the wife relies on the fact that yesterday she indicated that she was prepared to adjust matters, pretty much on the basis of what was ordered today, and that the husband has been unsuccessful in his application. He has not been wholly unsuccessful in his application as filed, but he has been unsuccessful in his application as prosecuted today.

2. In response, Mr Trim, sensibly, does not argue with the quantum of costs. He does, however, strenuously oppose his client’s liability for costs. He submits that the usual order ought apply and that each party ought bear their own costs. He submits that it was entirely appropriate for his client to bring the application. I agree with him. What does not seem inappropriate is that he ran it into a second day without success and without any apparent further evidence.

3. He speaks of Mr D’s view as being expressed in the current tense. It is not. Mr D’s report is dated in August last year, and there have been a number of intervening factors ever since then.

4. I have provided for there to be a further report and, as I have indicated, this is with good reason. I think the court will be assisted by it, and I think the parties will be assisted by it being exposed to Mr D again.

5. Counsel for the husband says that his client faces very significant legal costs now. The fact is that both parties ought to look at how much they are paying in legal costs. Neither parent can afford legal costs at the rate those costs are being incurred. Neither is in receipt of legal aid. The issues in this case were discussed in detail yesterday and a resolution in the terms I have ordered was available, more or less, to the parents yesterday. The father chose to press on. The mother has incurred costs unnecessarily. In my opinion, there are circumstances which justify a departure from the usual position that each party bear their own costs. I am satisfied that it is just that there be an order that the father pay some part of the mother’s costs of today.

6. In all of the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the husband ought to make a contribution of $600 towards the wife’s costs of and incidental to this day, and that such sum be paid to the wife’s solicitor within 21 days.

I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 3 June 2015.

Legal Associate:

Date: 20 July 2015