PENMAN & MORGAN

[2015] FamCA 578

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PENMAN & MORGAN [2015] FamCA 578

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Penman

RESPONDENT: Ms Morgan

FILE NUMBER: SYC 902 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 15 July 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 15 July 2015

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Litigant in person

Orders

1. The father’s Contravention Application filed 30 June 2015 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Penman & Morgan 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 902 of 2011

Mr Penman

Applicant

And

Ms Morgan

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I note that the father asks the court today to deal with an issue relating to the payment of an amount of $3,000 which is a payment that B School requires related to an application for enrolment of the child C pursuant to order 10 made 5 March 2015. The father has brought a contravention application against the mother which was filed 30 June 2015. The breach which the father alleges apparently is that the mother has refused to pay the enrolment expenses relating to the child.

2. The mother has pointed out that order 1 made 5 March 2015. Whilst that order discharges a number of orders made 6 June 2011, it does not discharge order 13 made on that day which was in the following terms:

   13. The husband and/or the husband’s mother [Ms D Penman] will be solely responsible for the payment of all and any school fees and expenses of [B School] and that any such payments will not be claimed by the husband as a non-agency child support payments [sic].

3. It is clear from the preceding order (order 12 of 6 June 2011) that the children to whom order 13 relates are E and C. Consequently it is clear on the face of the orders that Judge Kemp, when he made the order on 5 March 2015, intended order 13 made 6 June 2011 to continue to apply. That is, he intended that either the father or his mother be responsible for the payment of fees and expenses in relation to C at B School.

4. There is nothing in the orders that would create a basis for the father to bring a contravention application against the mother in respect of the outstanding enrolment fee.

5. I note that the mother has indicated to me that she does not have the ability to pay this fee herself or to pay school fees at B School from time to time and that in all probability that will mean that C will not be attending B School. She has also indicated that she has been the respondent on all occasions in this court; that she is sick of coming to this court and that she does not intend to be an applicant for enforcement of the orders that I have just referred to against either the father or the paternal grandmother.

6. I note that the father has indicated to me today that he believes the mother is in breach of order 10 made 5 March 2015 if she fails to bring an enforcement application against him or his mother for enforcement orders that would create a fund of money for C to attend B School but that matter is not before me today.

7. For the reasons that I have indicated, I dismiss the father’s Contravention Application filed 30 June 2015.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 15 July 2015

Associate: 

Date:  22.7.2015