FRANKLYN & FRANKLYN

Case [2019] FCCA 431


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRANKLYN & FRANKLYN [2019] FCCA 431
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application-Contempt – charges not made out – application dismissed.

Cases cited:

Oakley & Millar [2019] FamCAFC 12

Kendling & Anor & Kendling (Contempt) [2008] FamCAFC 154

Applicant: MS FRANKLYN
Respondent: MR FRANKLYN
File Number: DUC 63 of 2018
Judgment of: Judge Obradovic
Hearing date: 13 August 2018
Date of Last Submission: 19 September 2018
Delivered at: Parramatta
Delivered on: 1 March 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Gardiner
Solicitors for the Applicant: Kenny Spring Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Dalton
Solicitors for the Respondent: Lee Dalton & Associates

ORDERS

  1. The Application-Contempt filed 3 July 2018 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Franklyn & Franklyn is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

DUC 63 of 2018

MS FRANKLYN

Applicant

And

MR FRANKLYN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 13 August 2018, the Court heard the Application – Contempt filed by the wife on 3 July 2018.

  2. The wife relied on her affidavit filed in support on 3 July 2018, as well as the affidavit of Mr A in support of the application.

  3. The husband, the respondent in the Application – Contempt, notwithstanding his right of silence, filed an affidavit on 25 July 2018, which was read in the proceedings.

  4. Both parties were cross-examined, as was Mr A, licensed stock and station agent.

  5. The husband plead not guilty to the following charges:

    a)Charge 1:

    That on 24 May 2018 in breach of Order 3(a) made on 10 May 2018, the husband failed to do all such things and sign all such documents as required by the accountant of the partnership, Accountants.

    b)Charge 2:

    That on 24 May 2018 in breach of Order 4 made on 10 May 2018, the husband failed to provide documents evidencing or tending to show:

    i)The sales of all plant, machinery, livestock, grain or wool of the partnership or in his own name in the period from 1 October 2017 to 10 May 2018; and

    ii)The current inventory of all plant, machinery, livestock, grain or wool of the partnership or in his own name in the period from 1 October 2017 to 10 May 2018.

    c)Charge 3:

    That on 10 May 2018 in breach of Order 6 made on 10 May 2018 the husband failed to pay into the joint partnership bank account any monies received prior to and since 10 May 2018 in respect of the sale of any stock, wool, grain, hay or assets of the partnership.

    d)Charge 4:

    That on 17 May 2018 in breach of Order 7 made on 10 May 2018 the husband failed to disclose to the wife the location of all livestock, grain, plant and equipment, wool or any other property which has been removed from the real property owned by the parties or each of them in the period from 1 November 2017 to 10…

Continue reading FRANKLYN & FRANKLYN

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
FRANKLYN & FRANKLYN [2019] FCCA 431
Case
[2019] FCCA 431
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Obradovic considered an application for contempt brought by one party against the other. The specific nature of the alleged contempt and the underlying dispute between the parties are not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the charges of contempt, as laid out in the application filed on 3 July 2018, could be substantiated. The court was required to determine if the respondent's conduct met the legal threshold for contempt of court.

After considering the evidence and submissions, Judge Obradovic found that the charges of contempt were not made out. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application-Contempt filed 3 July 2018 is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.