Ganem and Ganem

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Ganem & Ganem*, considered an application for contempt brought by Ms Ganem (the applicant wife) against Mr Ganem (the respondent husband). The contempt application alleged that Mr Ganem had contravened court orders made on 26 March 2012, specifically by presenting a cheque for $9,400 against a company account without notice to the applicant or her solicitor, and without a requisite invoice or counter-signature.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the allegations of contempt were sufficiently clear and unequivocal to proceed, given the nature of contempt proceedings which are criminal in character. This required the court to examine the specific orders relied upon by the applicant and determine if the respondent's alleged conduct constituted a deliberate breach with the necessary intent. The court also had to consider the proper interpretation of the terms "capital" and "dealing with" within the context of the relevant orders, and whether the act of presenting a cheque amounted to a contravention.

Justice Aldridge found that there were significant ambiguities in the court orders of 26 March 2012, which rendered the contempt charge against Mr Ganem inappropriate. The court noted that Order 4.1(f) restrained the withdrawal of "capital" from a bank account, but the term "capital" itself was open to multiple interpretations. Furthermore, the court considered that presenting a cheque was distinct from drawing a cheque and might not constitute "dealing with the capital" in the manner intended by the order, which appeared directed at diminishing the account. The court also identified potential conflicts between different orders and the imprecise wording of Order 1(c), which did not impose a direct restraint.

Consequently, the court determined that the charge as drafted was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to form the basis of a contempt proceeding. Due to the ambiguity in the orders, it was deemed inappropriate to charge Mr Ganem with contempt as sought by the applicant. The part-heard proceedings were adjourned for further consideration.