Oxley & Inglis

The appeal concerned applications made by the father, Mr Oxley, in the Federal Magistrates Court against the mother, Ms Inglis, alleging contraventions of court orders. The Federal Magistrate presided over the hearing of these applications.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Magistrate had properly conducted the hearing of the contravention applications, specifically in relation to the procedural requirements mandated by Rule 25B.04 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. This rule outlines a specific procedure for the court to follow when hearing such applications, including informing the respondent of the allegations, asking them to admit or deny them, and hearing evidence from both parties.

The court found that the procedure followed by the Federal Magistrate did not strictly adhere to Rule 25B.04. The mother was not informed of the allegations and asked to admit or deny them, nor was she given an opportunity to give evidence in chief before being cross-examined. The court noted that a similar failure to strictly follow the prescribed procedure in a previous case, *Vlug v Poulos*, had led the Full Court to consider it unsafe to allow findings of contravention to stand due to the potential penal sanctions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

The court ordered that the father's applications be remitted for a rehearing by a different Federal Magistrate. Furthermore, the court granted the appellant father a costs certificate, indicating that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment to him in respect of the costs incurred on the appeal.