Narkis and Narkis (No. 2)

[2015] FamCA 533

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NARKIS & NARKIS (NO. 2) [2015] FamCA 533

FAMILY LAW – Contravention application — adjournment

APPLICANT: Mr Narkis

RESPONDENT: Ms Narkis

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 210 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 8 July 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 8 July 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Davis

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Cantwell Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lennon

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Lennon Mazzeo

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.I grant the wife’s application for an adjournment of the husband’s contravention application filed on 4 March 2015 NOTING THAT this was the second adjournment application made this day and the first application was disallowed.

2.The further hearing of the husband’s contravention application filed on 4 March 2015 be set down on 30 July 2015 at 10.00 am estimated to take one and a half days.

IT IS DIRECTED:

3.That my reasons for decision of the disallowance of the first adjournment application and the granting of the second adjournment application be transcribed and when settled a copy be placed on the Court file and be made available to the parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

4.I reserve the costs of the husband thrown away this day for determination on the hearing of the said contravention application and I fix such costs in the sum of $3,426.

5.In the event that the wife seeks to restrain Mr Peter Davis of Counsel or any other practitioner in this proceeding from acting on behalf of the husband in these proceedings she file and serve by not later than 4.00 pm on Wednesday 15 July 2015 an application specifying the orders that she seeks and all evidence and affidavit material upon which she relies in that regard.

6.In the event that the wife makes the application in accordance with the preceding paragraph of this Order, the husband file and serve any response to that application and any evidence in response by not later than Wednesday 22 July 2015.

7.In the event that the wife does file the application referred to in paragraph 5 of this Order that application be set down for hearing before me at 9.00 am on 24 July 2015 for determination NOTING THAT I will have only one hour to determine the matter and parties will need to structure and present their cases accordingly.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Narkis & Narkis (No. 2) 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 210 of 2014

Mr Narkis

Applicant

And

Ms Narkis

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

Introduction

1. This matter comes to me in the duty list and is a contravention application of the husband, filed on 4 March 2015. 

2. Mr Peter Davis of counsel appears on behalf of the applicant husband who is present in court. 

3. Mr Lennon, solicitor, appears on behalf of the respondent wife who was not present in court when the matter was called initially, and has not attended court during the balance of the day, in circumstances to which I will refer later in these reasons.

4. The applicant husband is 58 years old. He is a company Director. He resides in City D, USA.

5. The wife is 49 years old. She is legally trained but not currently employed as a solicitor.

6. There is one child of the relationship, E, born in 2002. The child is 13 years old and a student at CC School, which is a private, co-educational day school in the Melbourne suburb of DD. The child is known as “E”.

7. The husband and wife commenced cohabitation on 1 January 2001. They married in 2002. They separated in October 2012. They are divorced.

8. Each party has two children from a previous marriage. The wife’s children are FF and GG.  The husband’s children are HH and II.

9. On 2 December 2014, Johns J ordered, inter alia, that the interests of the child be independently represented by a solicitor arranged by Victoria Legal Aid. On 8 December 2014, Alison Trapski, solicitor, of Point Cook went on to the record as the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the child. The Independent Children’s Lawyer plays no part in the proceedings today.

Background to the Proceedings

1. The principal proceedings were initiated by the wife by application filed 13 January 2014 in which she sought an unspecified final alteration of property interests and numerous interim financial and injunctive orders. The husband’s response was filed on 26 February 2014 and amended on 15 April 2014. The husband does not agree with any orders sought by the wife, seeks unspecified orders effecting a final alteration of property interests and parenting orders in relation to the child including shared parental responsibility and that the child reside with him and see the wife as recommended by a psychologist.

2. Thus far the file comprises four volumes and 81 documents. My impression is that there have been a number of applications in a case and about 11 court appearances.

3. Each parent has filed a notice of risk of child abuse.

4. There have been Intervention Order proceedings in the state Magistrates’ Court

5. It appears that the wife initially acted for herself. On 19 June 2014, Clancy & Triado went onto the record as solicitors for the wife. On 23 June 2014, both parties were represented by counsel and orders were made, by consent, pursuant to which the wife received $500,000 by way of mortgage drawdown, of which $400,000 purported to be “categorised by way of part property settlement”. On 21 July 2014, the wife filed a notice of address for service as a self-represented litigant. On 23 October 2014, Nedovic Lawyers went onto the record as lawyers for the wife and contemporaneously filed an interim application. On 17 December 2014, the wife again filed a notice of address for service as a self-represented litigant. On 31 March 2015, the wife’s current solicitors, Lennon Mazzeo, filed a notice of address for service. The husband has been represented by Cantwell Family Lawyers throughout the proceedings.

6. The wife filed a contravention application on 16 April 2014, which was withdrawn on the same day and extensive orders were made by Cronin J. I am informed that the husband has filed a contravention application within the past few days which is returnable on 1 September 2015.

7. The only application returnable today is the husband’s contravention application filed 4 March 2015.

The Contravention Application

1. The contraventions alleged by the husband are in respect of the wife’s obligations under three orders, namely:-

   a)the Order made on 17 December 2014;

   b)the Order made on 16 April 2014, and

   c)the Order made on 5 March 2014. 

2. In the barest of summaries, the contraventions alleged are as follows:-

   d)Count 1 alleges that the wife failed to notify the husband of the school at which she was going to enrol the child as she was allegedly required to do pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Order made on 17 December 2014;

   e)By Count 2 it is alleged that the wife failed without reasonable excuse on 13 specified occasions, between 24 December 2014 and 28 February 2015, to facilitate Skype communication between the husband and the child, as she was allegedly required to do pursuant to paragraph 3(i) of the Order made on 17 December 2014;

   f)By Count 3 it is alleged that the wife failed to join with the husband to do all things necessary to engage a nominated valuer to prepare valuations of two real properties in Melbourne, as she was allegedly required to do pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Order made on 17 December 2014; 

   g)By Count 4 it is alleged that the wife failed to allow a representative from a certain named company into a property, as she was allegedly required to do pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Order made on 17 December 2014;

   h)By Count 5 it is alleged that the wife, from 17 April 2014 until June 2014, failed without reasonable excuse to advise the husband of all planned events and arrangements in respect of the child’s religious ceremony F, as the wife was allegedly required to do pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Order of 16 April 2014;

   i)By Count 6 it is alleged that the wife failed without reasonable excuse to provide clothing, toiletries and footwear on two separate occasions, being 20 June 2014 and 4 January 2015, as she was allegedly required to do pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Order made on 16 April 2014;

   j)By Count 7 it is alleged that the wife collected the child from school without the consent of the father and, thereby, hindered and prevented the father spending time with the child from 5 March 2014 until 12 March 2014, allegedly in contravention of paragraph 5 of the Order made on 5 March 2014. 

3. For ease of reference, I have distributed memoranda in which the Counts, as referred to above, are itemised. I mark that as exhibit “C1”.  It is apparent that the contraventions are broad.  They involve parenting orders, as well as procedural orders to ready the matter for a financial hearing.

4. The husband’s contravention application was initially returnable on 12 March 2015 at 9.30 am.  It was then adjourned to 5 May 2015, before Macmillan J.  On 5 May 2015 it was adjourned to today, which is 8 July 2015.

The First Adjournment Application

1. This morning, Mr Lennon, solicitor for the wife, said that he was instructed to apply for an adjournment and did so.

2. Mr Lennon informed the Court that he had understood that the hearing today was only “a directions hearing” or merely a mention of the husband’s contravention application and not a day for determination of the application and that his client and the child were on a short holiday away from Melbourne.

3. Mr Lennon tendered a letter dated 3 July 2015 from him to the solicitors for the husband.  I mark that correspondence exhibit “W1”, and direct that it remain on the court file.  It is a letter of three pages, with an email as an enclosure.  The gist of the letter is, relevantly, that Mr Lennon was informing the husband’s solicitors, as of last Friday, that: “Our client [the wife] had understood that the listing on 8 July was, in fact, directions”.

4. Mr Lennon sets out the basis upon which his client understood that today was only a directions hearing. It is clear, however, that the letter dated 3 July 2015 (five days ago) was sent in the context of the husband’s solicitors indicating that the husband wanted to proceed with his contravention application today.  If there was any doubt as to that, counsel for the husband tendered a letter which had been sent in reply to Mr Lennon’s letter.  I mark that exhibit “H1”, and direct that it remain on the court file.  That correspondence reads, in part, and relevantly as follows:-

   We refer to your correspondence of 3 July 2015.

   Our client’s initial contravention application was listed on 12 March 2015 and was adjourned until 5 May 2015. On that day, all parties agreed to adjourn it further to enable our client to be present at the hearing. Indeed his attendance being at the insistence of your client. 

   As you are aware, the application was adjourned and listed on 8 July 2015, a date when our client was to be in Melbourne to spend time with [the child]. 

   We put you on notice that your client is required to attend the hearing on 8 July 2015. We do not consent to this matter being adjourned any further. If your client does not wish to brief counsel then that is a matter for her. 

   We note that once again your client has indicated her intention to take a holiday in circumstances when your client is stating that she is impecunious and cannot pay for the costs of experts which have been court ordered.

5. The reference to the wife possibly not wishing to brief counsel for today arises in light of Mr Lennon’s letter of 3 July, in which he says at [3]:-

   Given that the matter was scheduled to be heard in the duty list, our Mr Lennon proposes doing the appearance. As you are well aware, due to the parlous financial circumstances of our client, our firm is yet to be put into any funds whatsoever. We are not in the position nor do we think it appropriate to retain Counsel without being able to ensure that either monies are retained in trust or that our office is in a position to confirm that Counsel will be paid.

6. As indicated above, I understand that the wife received, in July 2014, the sum of $500,000.  Mr Lennon says that none of those moneys have been paid to his firm and that he understands that there is a costs dispute between his client and one of her previous solicitors.

7. Mr Lennon also submitted that he is ill-equipped to represent the wife today on the contravention application, which he described as a “serious application” with “serious consequences” for his client if she was found to have contravened orders. 

8. Mr Lennon said that his preference would be to retain senior counsel, or, if not senior counsel, then senior junior counsel to appear on behalf of his client and that he would have done so but that he was not in funds. What Mr Lennon’s submission ignores is that the wife is a respondent to an application of which she has had notice since March 2015.  It has already been adjourned once, on 5 May 2015. 

9. If the wife cannot afford to retain counsel for a hearing and the solicitor who acts for her does not feel that he is able to appear on the application, that is not the end of the matter.  The wife can be self-represented in these contravention proceedings, which is neither an unusual nor impossible position in which to be placed. What the wife cannot do is stymie the hearing and determination of the husband’s application by saying, through Mr Lennon, that she has only Mr Lennon to represent her and he requires or prefers that counsel be briefed. Mr Lennon is legally qualified and his firm are the practitioners on the record or the wife can appear on her own behalf.

10. Mr Lennon submitted that his client has instructed him to seek a further litigation funding order, presumably to put Mr Lennon’s firm in funds with which he could then retain counsel of suitable seniority. However, the litigation funding application is not yet put together let alone filed or listed for hearing. I do not accept that a contravention application should await the determination of an application which is not yet filed and in respect of which I was not addressed (by either representative) on the likely prospects of success. Put another way, there is no certainty that any application for litigation that the wife does file will, in fact, succeed.

11. I am informed by counsel for the husband that the contraventions are continuing and that, otherwise, the husband is not spending time with the child pursuant to extant parenting orders, although it would appear that his complaint about the last two weeks of school holidays is the subject of the upcoming proceedings listed on 1 September 2015. If the alleged contraventions were stale or were superceded by apparently compliant behaviour, I may have been persuaded not to require a determination of the contravention application as soon as possible. However, the alleged contraventions involve parenting orders including weekly Skype communication as well as orders which are incidental to the proper progress of the financial proceedings. The wife has not filed any applications to vary the orders in respect of which the contraventions are alleged to have occurred in spite of the application having been filed more than four months ago and adjourned once already.

12. Today is a judicial duty list day.  Whilst today’s list is being conducted primarily by Macmillan J, for years in this Registry of this Court there has been the practice that another one or two judges will support the judicial duty list.  It was on this basis that this matter was transferred to me early in the day.  No practitioner in this case was entitled to assume that the matter could not receive proper attention today and would not be dealt with today. It is the policy of the Court to deal with contraventions as promptly as possible.

13. It does not appear to me to have been reasonable, nay possible, for Mr Lennon or his office to have misunderstood the situation to the extent that he could have properly or responsibly advised his client that she was not required to come to court today. Given the correspondence which has been tendered, I do not accept that Mr Lennon understood that the contravention application was not listed today “for anything other than a directions hearing”. If I am wrong, then Mr Lennon’s error is not an error which should delay the timely prosecution of the husband’s case. The allegations of contravention of machinery orders to ready the financial issues for final hearing relate to issues between the husband and the wife but compliance with the parenting orders is an issue which involves the child’s entitlement to have parenting orders observed. Consideration of the child’s interests ought not be postponed by a misunderstanding on the part of Mr Lennon. 

14. For the above considerations, I refused the wife’s adjournment application. Shortly after 11.00 am I indicated that I would rise but that the matter would proceed at 2.00 pm today.

15. I did not proceed with the contravention application immediately upon refusing the adjournment because, as indicated, the wife was not at court.

16. Mr Lennon said that he was instructed that the wife had taken the child on a short holiday until the end of this week, being for the balance of the school term holidays, and they were on “the peninsula”. It was thought by me, and I think it is fair to say by Mr Lennon also, that the reference to “the peninsula” was a reference to the Mornington Peninsula which is about an hour-and-a-half away from Melbourne.  I stood the matter down and directed Mr Lennon, who was in telephone contact with the wife, to inform the wife that she was required at court and that she should forthwith make her way from the Mornington Peninsula to Melbourne, or wherever, so that we could commence the case by 2.00 pm.

17. Shortly after 2.00 pm, the Court reconvened. 

The Second Adjournment Application

1. At 2.00 pm Mr Lennon informed me that the wife was not able to attend court and that “[the wife] had indicated to [him] that she is unable to get back from the peninsula”. I asked Mr Lennon where the peninsula was in relation to Melbourne and he said that his client had not actually disclosed her whereabouts to him (or words to that effect).

2. I directed Mr Lennon to contact his client by telephone to ask for her, and the child’s, precise whereabouts, to which he responded that he had sought those instructions but “she would not disclose it”. I pressed Mr Lennon for a street address and directed that he call the wife again.

3. Mr Lennon returned and informed the court that his client is at JJ Town.  After one further telephone call by Mr Lennon, it was clarified that the wife had instructed Mr Lennon and she and the child are actually in JJ Town, in northern New South Wales. That is approximately a 17 hour journey by car from Melbourne.

4. Mr Lennon then said he wished to renew his application for an adjournment. I permitted him to do so because he said that he had “another point” he wished to press and which he had not included in his earlier submissions.

5. Mr Lennon referred first to having been placed in an “invidious position”. He said that he had earlier been “attempting to straddle an extremely fine line between being candid with [his] obligations as an officer of the court” and conveying the discussions he had with his client in the course of seeking and obtaining instructions and giving advice. I am not entirely clear what Mr Lennon was submitting or what consequences would flow therefrom. My impression was that he thinks that the wife might be dissatisfied with his performance in court today and she may withdraw her instructions to his firm to act on her behalf but I actually do not know.

1. Second, Mr Lennon said that he had been “instructed over the break” by the wife that Mr Davis “has been briefed by [Mr Michael Gleeson] a lawyer engaged by [the wife] and that, in the course of being briefed, disclosures were made about, amongst other things, this contravention application”.

2. It was said that Mr Gleeson is a solicitor with a predominantly criminal law practice who had been retained by the wife to act for her against the husband in crimes family violence proceedings or, as I referred to them above, Intervention Order proceedings in the state Magistrates’ Court.

3. Mr Lennon said that all the information he had been able to obtain from Mr Gleeson was that Mr Gleeson “does have a specific recollection of speaking with Mr Davis about an IVO” and that Mr Gleeson had said that “it was about two and a half months ago, that he did not have moneys in trust and, therefore, could not formally brief [Mr Davis]”.

4. Mr Davis’ response was that he had no recollection whatsoever of talking to Mr Gleeson. He queried whether Mr Gleeson could have made an enquiry of his clerk rather than having spoken directly to him.

5. Mr Gleeson was not at court and it was agreed that a call be placed to Mr Gleeson. Mr Gleeson was not sworn and he did not give evidence but the entire conversation was audible. Mr Gleeson said:-

   MR GLEESON: […] I noted I was asked to retain counsel and I rang and spoke to counsel and I gave them some background and I tentatively booked it then I didn’t — I’m — see, I’m a criminal law specialist so I acted for [Ms Narkis] in relation to some matters in the Magistrates’ Court.  She was without a lawyer for some time, so I, in the short term, tried to assist her and then said she would go see a specialist family lawyer but I did contact counsel in relation to appearing in a contravention proceeding.

   HER HONOUR: […] Did you contact Mr Peter Davis of counsel?

   MR GLEESON:  […] I’m pretty confident that I did. I haven’t got my file with me but I’m pretty confident that I did, yes.

   HER HONOUR:  And that’s different, contacting Mr Peter Davis of Counsel, as opposed to contacting his clerk and enquiring about how much his fee might be?

   MR GLEESON:  […] I know I spoke to counsel directly because I had to give them some background about the matter.  So I know I spoke with counsel directly.  I wish I could be of more help, but it’s — probably maybe this occurred maybe three months ago and I run a fairly busy criminal law practice and I’m in court every day, so — but I am confident, fairly confident, that I spoke to counsel directly and gave them some background about the contravention. I tentatively retained but then referred her elsewhere and didn’t have any more part of that proceeding.

6. Mr Davis, for his part, informed the Court that he believed that Mr Gleeson was in error, he had had no recollection of speaking to Mr Gleeson on any occasion and that enquiries of his clerk revealed that Mr Gleeson does not brief family law counsel from his list. Furthermore, that whilst there was some possibility that he (Mr Davis) could be incorrect, he did not believe that he was. Significantly, Mr Davis informed the Court, without contradiction by Mr Lennon, that the last intervention order proceedings in which the parents had been engaged were proceedings in December 2014, which had been resolved by consent. Mr Gleeson said that the relevant conversation “occurred maybe three months ago”, which is approximately early March 2015, rather than November or December 2014.

7. There are two things to be noted about the above conversation with Mr Gleeson. Firstly, Mr Gleeson had no advance warning of the fact that a call would be placed to him by the Court. Secondly, Mr Gleeson did not give sworn evidence, because I did not think it appropriate to ask him to do so, having not received appropriate notice that he might have to give evidence in the proceedings and being without his file. I am not prepared to make any determination about this aspect of the controversy today.

8. The issue of Mr Davis being conflicted is a matter that can only be determined, if it has to be determined at all, based on evidence which is reliably before the Court and able to be tested in cross examination.

9. As to the whereabouts of the wife, it was eventually ascertained by Mr Lennon that the wife says that today she is at KK Street, JJ Town, New South Wales.  When asked, Mr Lennon said that the wife had been contacted on her mobile telephone number, which was ...  In the event that the husband further queries the bona fides of the wife’s instructions to Mr Lennon, it is presumably open to him or his lawyers to cause subpoena(s) to issue requiring production by her mobile telephone service provider of documents which can verify the whereabouts of the wife’s mobile phone this afternoon by reference to its signal location, which would be evident from ordinary telephone accounts.

10. The contravention proceedings should be dealt with as soon as possible, that is, with speed not haste.  The wife will have to reconcile herself to the fact that she may well be representing herself in these contravention proceedings. When making directions I will assume that the wife will represent herself. If the wife can continue to retain the services of Mr Lennon and his firm she will have a less onerous road ahead.

11. Mr Lennon says that he is now in a position to make a further application for litigation funding. I note that he has been on the record as the wife’s solicitor since 31 March 2015 and has not made an application yet.  In the meantime, there have been nine subpoenas issued on behalf of the wife, all of which appear to have been issued by Mr Lennon’s firm. There is quite a lengthy document sworn by Mr Lennon, which is folio 70 on the court file, as recently as 9 June 2015.  Much of that document is annexures but there are 10 paragraphs which relate to objections to subpoenas.  In sum, the wife has been incurring legal costs already without Mr Lennon having been paid. 

Conclusion

1. I will accede to the second application of the wife for an adjournment based on the fact that she raises a conflict issue which cannot be resolved today.  That said, the costs implications associated with this issue should not be disregarded lightly. The wife would be well advised to investigate through Mr Gleeson what actually occurred. In any injunction application, the wife bears the onus of satisfying the Court that it is proper and appropriate that an injunction should be granted. It is not up to the husband or Mr Davis to prove that it is not.

2. I will reserve the husband’s costs.  I will fix costs now and leave the question of the wife’s liability for payment of some or all of those costs to the Court at a later date. 

3. The contravention application can be dealt with on 30 and 31 July 2015.  That’s Thursday 30 July and Friday 31 July.  There will be more than adequate time to dispose of the husband’s contravention application within that time frame.  In fact, having looked at it and extracted it, it seems to me that the matter may only take half a day but I’m being conservative in my approach in saying that it could conceivably take a day or a little more. 

4. Any decision about, or any ambiguity or doubt about, the ability of Mr Davis of counsel to appear on behalf of the husband must be clarified well prior to 30 July.  Mr Davis seeks orders of the Court that the wife, within seven days, file and serve any application upon which she relies supported by appropriate material in which she seeks orders restraining him from acting on behalf of the husband. 

5. Mr Lennon says that seven days is not sufficient time and he would seek as long as possible, but nominated two weeks.  The difficulty with two weeks is that that will be too soon before the final hearing fixture of the contravention application. Accordingly, seven days seems appropriate to me and I make orders accordingly.

6. I make the following observations in this regard: 

   ·Mr Lennon says (and I accept) that his firm has not received any money on account of fees or disbursements from the wife.

   ·I do not expect practitioners to act for no reward.

   ·The wife must now reconcile herself to the fact that she will have to act for herself in the event that she can’t pay Mr Lennon or put him in a position where he can incur liability for counsel’s fees.

   ·The obligation to comply with orders for the filing of further applications now rests with her.  The wife might seek to discharge that obligation by retaining a solicitor but, if she can’t retain a solicitor, that does not mean that she doesn’t need to file the documents.

7. The husband should file any response and evidence in response to whatever is filed on behalf of the wife within 14 days from today.  That’s seven days from the date by which the wife has to comply.

8. In cases in which one party seeks to restrain a practitioner from acting for another party, there are a number of considerations with which the wife and any solicitors who she instructs will no doubt familiarise themselves. One such consideration is any delay by her in raising the conflict and prosecuting her application. Mr Davis seeks an order that, if the wife does not make her application within seven days, she be precluded from raising the conflict subsequently and seeking then to restrain him from appearing for the husband.  I won’t make an order in those terms.  However, that is not to say that the wife will be granted any further opportunity, over and above the next seven days, or even an extension of time, in which to file the documents that she has an opportunity to file now.

9. The wife requires the husband to be available for cross examination on the contravention application.  The husband is usually resident in City D in the United States of America.  He has been in Australia for the purpose of seeing the child but unfortunately hasn’t seen her during these holidays. Mr Davis is instructed that the husband remained in Melbourne so as to be available to be cross examined today. I am informed by Mr Davis, and accept, that the husband can’t stay in Australia past tomorrow because he has business commitments elsewhere.

10. In all of the circumstances, it is appropriate for the husband to be able to appear by video link at the hearing of his contravention application on 30 and 31 July 2015. That is, an audio-visual video link in which his demeanour can be observed.

11. I will leave it to the husband’s solicitors to make those arrangements with the court and to set an appropriate time for sitting having regard to the different time zones. 

12. I won’t make any order requiring the wife to file any material upon which she relies in relation to the contravention application because it is a contravention application and the wife has the added protections accorded by virtue of that. I make clear, however, that it will be necessary for the wife to attend court on the return date of that contravention application, 30 July 2015.  This is in spite of the fact that the application itself notifies the respondent, which is the wife, that the consequence of a failure to attend court on the return date will be that a warrant may issue for her arrest or that the hearing may proceed and orders may be made in her absence. 

13. Mr Lennon assures me that he will be able to impress upon his client the requirement that she attend court on the adjourned date and that a warrant for her arrest will not be necessary.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 8 July 2015.

Legal Associate:

Date: 13 July 2015