Kipling and Netis

[2019] FamCA 432

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIPLING & NETIS [2019] FamCA 432

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Where the father brings an Application for Contravention – Where the Application for Contravention is brought due to the parties’ dispute over the proper construction of the final children’s orders made – Where the parties agree that the Application for Contravention should be dismissed if the final orders were properly construed in written reasons – Where the final orders provided that the parties are to attend mediation in the event of a dispute about the interpretation of the orders – Where the Court properly construed the intention of the orders to prevent ongoing conflict – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 70NBA

Netis & Kipling [2018] FamCA 703

APPLICANT: Mr Kipling

RESPONDENT: Ms Netis

FILE NUMBER: TVC 809 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 5 July 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Cairns

PLACE HEARD: Townsville by telephone

JUDGMENT OF: Tree J

HEARING DATE: By written submission last filed 25 June 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Raeburn (by direct brief)

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. The father’s Contravention Application filed 29 April 2019 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Kipling & Netis has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT TOWNSVILLE

FILE NUMBER: TVC809/2015

Mr Kipling

Applicant

And

Ms Netis

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION  

1. On 12 September 2018 I delivered final judgment in these parties’ parenting proceedings.  In my reasons,[1] I commented upon the parties’ history of unremitting conflict, and worse, the fact that it had, and likely would continue to, blight the one child born to their relationship.  Yet despite that, albeit consistent with my pessimistic predictions in the judgment, they have continued on with their passionate conflict.

   [1]Netis & Kipling [2018] FamCA 703.

2. Their present dispute is over the proper construction of my 12 September 2018 orders, with the vehicle for that conflict being the father’s Application – Contravention filed 29 April 2019.  On 18 June 2019 I mentioned that application, during which, once the construction issue was identified, the father’s counsel agreed that, if I was prepared to assist the parties by construing my orders in written reasons, he would consent to his contravention application being dismissed.  I then ordered a timetable for the filing of written submissions, at the conclusion of which, on 25 June 2019, my decision would stand reserved.

3. This is that decision and the reasons for it.

THE PROBLEM

1. Orders 8 and 9 of my…