LGM & CAM

The appeal before the court involved the wife challenging various decisions made by the trial judge, including the dismissal of a contravention application, the allowance of certain material, findings of fact regarding the wife's knowledge of an injunctive order, and the application of the standard of proof in contempt and contravention applications. Additionally, the wife argued that the trial judge had erred in handling her evidence under sections 128 and 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court was tasked with determining whether any of these decisions constituted an appealable error.

The court found that while some of the wife's arguments had merit, others did not. The court determined that no appealable error was established regarding the dismissal of the contravention application or the allowance of certain material. The wife had not raised complaints about service and had agreed to accept service, and the husband's counsel had indicated they could prove proper service. Regarding findings of fact, the court held that the trial judge had sufficient material to conclude that the wife was aware of the injunctive order. However, the court found appealable error in the trial judge's handling of the wife's evidence. The trial judge had failed to inform the wife of her privilege against self-incrimination, and improperly admitted evidence obtained under s 138 of the Evidence Act.

The court found appealable error in the trial judge's decision regarding the standard of proof in the contempt and contravention applications. The reasons provided by the trial judge were inadequate and inconsistent. This led to the setting aside of the orders made by the trial judge on 2 July 2009 and 25 February 2010. The appeal against these orders was allowed. Finally, the court granted the appellant wife a Certificate pursuant to s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), indicating that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorize a payment to the wife for costs incurred in the appeal.