Lott and Graham

[2014] FamCA 400

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LOTT & GRAHAM [2014] FamCA 400

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Contravention of Court order – Where application dismissed as information father was seeking has been provided.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Lott

RESPONDENT: Mr Graham

FILE NUMBER: SYC 660 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 30 April 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Aldridge J

HEARING DATE: 30 April 2014

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT IN PERSON: Mr Lott

THE RESPONDENT IN PERSON: Mr Graham

Orders

1. That the contravention application filed by the father on 3 February 2014 is hereby dismissed. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lott & Graham 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 660 of 2009

Mr Lott

Applicant

And

Mr Graham

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These reasons were delivered orally.

2. Mr Lott (‘the applicant’) filed a Contravention Application on 3 February 2014.  Mr Graham (‘the respondent’) is the step-father of the children of these proceedings.

3. In relation to the contravention that is before the court the applicant has now been provided with the information with which he was not previously provided and the lack of which concerned him greatly.  The applicant now knows, for example, the address of the school where his children attend.

4. In those circumstances, the applicant accepts that, since the purpose of the contravention application was to obtain certain information regarding the children, there is nothing to be gained by further proceeding.

5. I have indicated to the respondent and Ms Graham, the mother of the children and who was also present in court this day, that the way to avoid any further contravention applications is to scrupulously comply with the Orders made by his Honour Justice Fowler.

Conclusion

1. In those circumstances the application is dismissed, although that is on the basis that there is no further point as the information previously sought has been provided.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge delivered on 30 April 2014.

Legal Associate: 

Date:  12 June 2014