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 & 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
That the Application for Contempt filed on 3 September 2012 is dismissed.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- GANEM & GANEM (NO.2) [2013] FamCA 257
- Case
- [2013] FamCA 257
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.