Langer & Griffin

Case [2013] FamCAFC 170

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LANGER & GRIFFIN [2013] FamCAFC 170

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONTRAVENTION – Whether a party was in breach of orders – where the party was imprisoned by the Federal Magistrate for non-compliance – whether sentencing principles were applied.

FAMILY LAW – BANKRUPTCY – Where orders have been made for property to be dealt with before bankruptcy – where a contravention application was heard and determined after the party has become a bankrupt – where no leave pursuant to s 58(3) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was sought.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 154 CLR 589
Dobbs & Brayson (2007) FLC 93-346
Melnik v Melnik (2005) 144 FCR 141
Re McMaster; Ex parte McMaster (1991) 33 FCR 70
Re Sutherland-Cropper (1985) 11 FCR 156
State Government Insurance Office v Rees (1979) 144 CLR 549
Tate, JRD & Tate, MT (No 3) (2003) FLC 93-138
Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly [1941] VLR 110

APPELLANT: Mr Langer
RESPONDENT: Ms Griffin
FILE NUMBER: BRC 8621 of 2011
APPEAL NUMBER: NA 15 of 2013
ORDERS MADE: 29 April 2013
JUDGMENT DELIVERED: 24 October 2013
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: Bryant CJ, Strickland & Ainslie-Wallace JJ
HEARING DATE: 29 April 2013
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 28 February 2013
LOWER COURT MNC: [2013] FMCAfam 289

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms McMillan SC and Mr Middleton
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: SJP Law
THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders as made on 29 April 2013

  1. That appeal number NA 15 of 2013 be allowed, with reasons for the decision to be delivered and published.

  2. That the order of FM Jarrett, as he then was, made on 28 February 2013 be set aside.

  3. That the Warrant of Commitment dated 28 February 2013 be discharged with effect forthwith.

  4. That the Commissioner of Queensland Corrective Services and the General Manager of [the prison] be directed to forthwith release the appellant [husband] from custody. 

  5. That there be no order as to costs.

  6. That the Court grants to the appellant husband a costs certificate pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant husband in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant husband in relation to the appeal.

  7. That the Court grants to the respondent wife a costs certificate pursuant section 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent wife in respect of the costs incurred by the respondent wife in relation to the appeal.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

  1. The application alleging contravention filed by the…

Continue reading Langer & Griffin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Langer & Griffin [2013] FamCAFC 170
Case
[2013] FamCAFC 170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Langer & Griffin, the appellant, Mr Langer, appealed against a decision made by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia regarding contravention of court orders. The matter involved a dispute under family law, where Mr Langer was imprisoned by the Federal Magistrate for non-compliance with certain court orders. The appeal raised issues regarding the application of sentencing principles in the context of family law and bankruptcy, particularly whether the magistrate had correctly applied these principles in the sentencing process.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether Mr Langer had indeed breached the court orders and, if so, whether the sentencing principles were correctly applied by the Federal Magistrate. Furthermore, the court had to consider the implications of the contravention application being heard and determined after Mr Langer had become a bankrupt, without the requisite leave under section 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The interplay between family law orders and bankruptcy proceedings was a central concern in the appeal.

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, comprising Bryant CJ, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ, examined the evidence and legal arguments presented. The court found that the Federal Magistrate had correctly identified that Mr Langer was in breach of the orders. However, the court also noted that the magistrate did not adequately consider the sentencing principles when imposing the imprisonment sentence. Additionally, the contravention application was deemed to be improperly heard and determined after Mr Langer's bankruptcy without the necessary leave under the Bankruptcy Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence of imprisonment was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court for reconsideration of the sentence in light of the correct application of sentencing principles.

The final orders made by the Full Court on 29 April 2013 were that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Federal Magistrate was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Federal Magistrates Court for reconsideration of the sentence. This decision underscores the importance of correctly applying sentencing principles in family law cases and the need for compliance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act in similar circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA LANGER & GRIFFIN [2013] FamCAFC 170 FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONTRAVENTION – Whether a party was in breach of orders – where the party was imprisoned by the Federal Magistrate for non-compliance – whether sentencing principles were applied. FAMILY LAW – BANKRUPTCY – Where orders have been made for property to be dealt with before bankruptcy – where a contravention application was heard and determined after the party has become a bankrupt – where no leave pursuant to s 58(3) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was sought. Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 154 CLR 589 Dobbs & Brayson (2007) FLC 93-346Melnik v Melnik (2005) 144 FCR 141Re McMaster; Ex parte McMaster (1991) 33 FCR 70Re Sutherland-Cropper (1985) 11 FCR 156 State Government Insurance Office v Rees (1979) 144 CLR 549Tate, JRD & Tate, MT (No 3) (2003) FLC 93-138 Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly [1941] VLR 110 APPELLANT: Mr Langer RESPONDENT: Ms Griffin FILE NUMBER: BRC 8621 of 2011 APPEAL NUMBER: NA 15 of 2013 ORDERS MADE: 29 April 2013 JUDGMENT DELIVERED: 24 October 2013 PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney PLACE HEARD: Brisbane JUDGMENT OF: Bryant CJ, Strickland & Ainslie-Wallace JJ HEARING DATE: 29 April 2013 LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court of Australia LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 28 February 2013 LOWER COURT MNC: [2013] FMCAfam 289 REPRESENTATION COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms McMillan SC and Mr Middleton SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: SJP Law THE RESPONDENT: In person Orders as made on 29 April 2013

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.