MOULOS & MOULOS

In *Moulos & Moulos*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Moulos (the applicant wife) alleging contravention of court orders by Mr Moulos (the respondent husband). The proceedings concerned the husband's alleged failure to comply with multiple orders relating to child handover, financial disclosure, cost sharing, petrol money payments, and the delivery of a motor vehicle. The court was required to determine whether the husband had contravened the specified orders and, if so, whether he had established a reasonable excuse for such contraventions.

The court found that the husband had contravened four of the five alleged breaches. Specifically, he contravened orders requiring the return of the child on 10 April 2011, the disclosure of financial documentation by 9 February 2011, the payment of $20 per week for petrol money as per the order of 28 October 2010, and the delivery of a motor vehicle by 5:00 pm on 10 June 2011. The allegation concerning the failure to share equally the costs for nanny services was dismissed due to a lack of prima facie evidence.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding contravention of orders. The husband admitted to contravening some orders but sought to rely on reasonable excuses. For the failure to return the child, the court found his excuse of car trouble unsatisfactory, noting his failure to adequately explore alternative arrangements for the child's return and his unilateral decision to retain the child overnight. Regarding financial disclosure, the court found his explanations for not providing tax returns, bank statements, and property sale correspondence unconvincing, particularly given his profession as a lawyer and access to funds. The excuse for not paying petrol money was rejected as the court interpreted the order as a clear weekly liability, and the husband's assertion of an exemption was not supported by the court transcript. Finally, the husband's excuse for not delivering the motor vehicle, based on a misunderstanding of its registration, was found to be without merit as it did not negate his obligation to deliver the vehicle as ordered.

The court found the husband guilty of contravening the four specified orders. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for 29 August 2011, with parties required to file any affidavits relating to sentencing by 25 August 2011. The sentencing was to be conducted via video link from the H Town Registry.