Ganem & Ganem (No. 2)

Case [2013] FamCA 257


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GANEM & GANEM (NO.2) [2013] FamCA 257
FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Contravention of Court order  –  Where there was some evidence husband complied with orders – Where wife’s applications for contempt not established – Where wife’s applications for contempt is dismissed.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss:112AP; 112AA; 112AD
Family Law Rules 2004 r 21.08

Bande and Cade 45 FAM LR 376

In the Marriage of English (1986) FLC 91-729

In the Marriage of Tate (2002) 29 Fam LR 195
Mead v Mead [2007] HCATrans 219

Mead & Mead (2006) FLC 93-267

APPLICANT: Ms Ganem
RESPONDENT: Mr Ganem
FILE NUMBER: SYC 931 of 2012
DATE DELIVERED: 19 April 2013
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Aldridge J
HEARING DATE: 12 & 21 March 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Siggins
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mason Mia & Associates-Solicitors & Advocates
THE RESPONDENT IN PERSON: Mr Ganem

Orders

  1. That the Application for Contempt filed on 3 September 2012 is dismissed.

  2. That the Application for Contempt filed on 24 January 2013 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ganem & Ganem (No.2) 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

FILE NUMBER: SYC 931 of 2012

Ms Ganem

Applicant

And

Mr Ganem

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an application by Ms Ganem (“the wife”) charging Mr Ganem (“the husband”) with contempt pursuant to section 112AP of the Family Law Act 1975. There are two applications before the Court – one filed on 3 September 2012 and one filed on 24 January 2013 making in total 33 separate allegations of contempt.

  2. Section 112AP relevantly provides:

    (1) Subject to subsection (1A), this section applies to a contempt of court that:

    (a) does not constitute a contravention of an order under this Act; or

    (b) constitutes a contravention of an order under this Act and involves a flagrant challenge to the authority of the court.

    (1A) this section does not apply to a contempt that constitutes a contravention of a maintenance order if the order has been complied with before the matter of the contravention comes before the court.

    (2)  In spite of any other law, a court having jurisdiction under this Act may punish a person for contempt of that court.

    (3) The applicable Rules of Court may provide for practice and procedure as to charging with contempt and the hearing of the charge.

    (4) Where a natural person is in contempt, the court may punish the contempt by committal to prison or fine or both.

  3. Subsection 112AP(9) provides:

    “order under this Act” means an order under this Act affecting children or an order under this Act within the meaning of Part XIIIA.

  4. Section 112AA defines “an order under this Act” as, in part,

    An order (however described) made by the court under this Act other than…

Continue reading Ganem & Ganem (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
GANEM & GANEM (NO.2) [2013] FamCA 257
Case
[2013] FamCA 257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *Ganem & Ganem (No. 2)* concerned applications for contempt brought by the applicant against the respondent. The proceedings were heard by Aldridge J in the Family Court of Australia. The core of the dispute revolved around alleged breaches of court orders by the respondent.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the respondent had, on two separate occasions, acted in contempt of court by failing to comply with orders previously made. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the respondent's conduct amounted to a wilful disregard or disobedience of the Court's directives, thereby constituting contempt.

Aldridge J dismissed both applications for contempt. The reasoning for this decision was not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the Court was not satisfied that the applicant had proven the necessary elements of contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The dismissal of both applications signifies that the Court found no contemptuous conduct on the part of the respondent in relation to the matters brought before it.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the Application for Contempt filed on 3 September 2012 is dismissed.

2.

That the Application for Contempt filed on 24 January 2013 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.