Millar and Oakley (No. 4)

[2018] FamCA 122

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MILLAR & OAKLEY (NO. 4) [2018] FamCA 122

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – suspended sentence – discussion of penalty – retribution and coercion.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

AMIEU v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
In the Marriage of Tate (No. 3) (2003) 30 Fam LR 427

APPLICANT: Ms Millar

RESPONDENT: Mr Oakley

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2195 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 12 February 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 12 February 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Goddard

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ebejer & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

In person

Excused

Orders

1. HAVING FOUND MR OAKLEY (RESPONDENT HUSBAND) GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ON 30 JANUARY 2018, the husband is sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for a period of two years from this date on condition that he complies with all orders of the court and does all things necessary to give effect to paragraphs (4) and (5) of the orders made on 9 June 2017.

2. That the wife’s application for contempt is otherwise 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 Millar & Oakley (No 4) 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2195 of 2016

Ms Millar

Applicant

And

Mr Oakley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 30 January 2018, I found Mr Oakley guilty of contempt of court within the meaning as set out in s 112AP of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The purpose of s 112AP is to ensure that the court’s orders are carried out. In this case, the orders that were relevant were those made on 9 June 2017. Two specific orders of that day are relevant.

2. The first order was that, until further order, Mr Oakley was restrained by injunction from proceeding with, or prosecuting, any legal action in Country B relating to the whereabouts and residence of his children and, in particular, any restraint upon the children and their mother leaving that country. 

3. The second order required Mr Oakley, including by his agents, to sign all consequential documents that would authorise the removal of the applicant mother and the parties’ children from any injunctive order in Country B to enable them to return to Australia.

4. Mr Oakley declined to sign the document presented to him and, having had a look at that document on the previous occasion, it was clear that, whilst it…