Medlow and Medlow - [2016] FamCA 411

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEDLOW & MEDLOW

[2016] FamCA 411

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Where the disqualification application is dismissed – Where the application for summary dismissal is dismissed – Where it is found that a prima facie case has not been established – Where the contempt application is dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 112AP

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Iberian Trust Ltd v Founders Trust and Investment Co Ltd [1932] 2 KB 87
Johnson v Johnson (2008) 201 CLR 488
LGM & CAM (Contempt)(No 2) (2008) FLC 93-355
May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654
Rand & Rand (2010) FLC 93-444
Redland Bricks Limited v Morris [1970] AC 652
Redwing Ltd v Redwing Forest Products Ltd (1947) 177 LT 387

APPLICANT:

Ms Medlow

RESPONDENT:

Mr Medlow

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

7742

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

26 May 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Rees J

HEARING DATE:

17 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Richardson SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Barkus Doolan

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Gould

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Watts McCray Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

That the Application–Contempt filed by the wife on 29 September 2015 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Medlow & Medlow 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 7742 of 2010

Ms Medlow

Applicant

And

Mr Medlow

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Property settlement proceedings between Ms Medlow (“the wife”) and Mr Medlow (“the husband) are awaiting determination.
In those proceedings, relevantly to the present application, orders were made on 14 January 2011 restraining the husband from dealing with his assets. Further orders were made on 11 September 2014 which had the effect of allowing the husband specified, limited dealings with real estate.
On 29 September 2015, the wife filed an application seeking orders, pursuant to s 112AP of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), that the husband be dealt with on five charges of contempt. That application was listed for hearing on 17 May 2016.
This litigation has a lengthy history. The husband is engaged in civil litigation in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and is also defending serious criminal charges.
In property settlement proceedings between the parties, which have been on foot since 2010, a number of orders have been made for the preservation of property pending determination of the matter and, inter alia, releasing funds, on an interim basis.
On 8 March 2016, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (the Full Court”) delivered judgment in an appeal. The orders which are said, in these proceedings, to have been breached, and the circumstances of one of the breaches, were the subject of some discussion in the judgment of the Full Court.
When the matter came before me on 17 May 2016…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Medlow and Medlow

Details

AGLC: Medlow and Medlow [2016] FamCA 411
Case: [2016] FamCA 411
Decision Date: 26 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Medlow and Medlow*, heard before Rees J, the wife filed an application alleging contempt against the husband. The specific nature of the alleged contempt is not detailed in the provided text, but it arose within the context of family law proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the husband had, in fact, committed contempt of court as alleged by the wife. This required the court to assess the evidence presented by the wife against the relevant legal standards for establishing contempt.

Rees J dismissed the wife's application. While the reasons for this dismissal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court was not satisfied that the threshold for proving contempt had been met. The court's decision implies that the evidence presented did not establish, to the required legal standard, that the husband had breached any court orders or otherwise acted in contempt.

Consequently, the court ordered that the Application–Contempt filed by the wife on 29 September 2015 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED

That the Application–Contempt filed by the wife on 29 September 2015 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.