Pitman & Hynes - [2024] FedCFamC2F 22

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Pitman & Hynes [2024] FedCFamC2F 22

File number: WOC 772 of 2011

Judgment of: JUDGE LIOUMIS

Date of judgment: 19 January 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Where the Applicant alleges 13 grounds of contempt by the Respondent – Where no prima facie case is found in relation to any of the grounds – Where the parties are invited to provide written submissions as to the Respondent’s application that the Applicant be prohibited from instituting further proceedings without leave pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where both children are adults at the date of hearing

Legislation:
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 69ZK, 102NA, 102QB, 112AP

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 11.71

Cases cited:
Carlson & Carlson [2020] FamCA 108

Pitman & Hynes [2021] FamCA 300

Pitman & Hynes (No 2) [2018] FamCA 1015

Pitman & Hynes (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 373

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 138

Date of hearing: 5–6 October 2023

Place: Wollongong

For the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hill of Counsel

Solicitor for the Respondent: Fletch Law
ORDERS

WOC 772 of 2011

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS PITMAN

Applicant

AND:
MR HYNES

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LIOUMIS

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JANUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application – Contempt filed 29 April 2022 is dismissed.
2.Within 28 days of the date of these Orders, each party shall file and serve written submissions of no more than 5 pages in relation to the Respondent Father’s application that the Applicant Mother be prohibited from instituting further proceedings without leave pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
3.Judgment in relation to the Respondent Father’s application pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Act will be reserved thereafter to a date and time to be advised by Chambers.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

On 29 April 2022, the Applicant mother Ms Pitman (“the Applicant”) filed an Application that the Respondent father Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Pitman & Hynes

Details

AGLC: Pitman & Hynes [2024] FedCFamC2F 22
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 22
Decision Date: 19 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) presided over a case where Ms Pitman, the applicant, filed an application alleging 13 grounds of contempt against Mr Hynes, the respondent. The central issue was whether Mr Hynes had breached any of the orders or undertakings made by the court, which Ms Pitman claimed constituted contempt of court. The court was tasked with determining if there was a prima facie case of contempt based on the allegations presented by Ms Pitman. Additionally, the court considered Mr Hynes’ application for an order prohibiting Ms Pitman from initiating further proceedings without leave, as per section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

The court meticulously reviewed each of the 13 grounds of contempt alleged by Ms Pitman. It found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case on any of the grounds. Consequently, the application for contempt was dismissed. Furthermore, the court acknowledged Mr Hynes' application for an order restricting Ms Pitman's ability to bring further proceedings without leave. It invited both parties to submit written arguments within 28 days regarding this application, reserving judgment until a later date.

In its final order, the court dismissed Ms Pitman’s application for contempt and mandated that both parties submit written submissions on Mr Hynes’ application within a specified timeframe. Judgment on Mr Hynes' application was to be reserved until a later date to be determined by the court. This decision underscores the court's rigorous approach to assessing allegations of contempt and its emphasis on procedural fairness when considering applications for restrictions on future proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

WOC 772 of 2011

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS PITMAN

Applicant

AND:

MR HYNES

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LIOUMIS

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JANUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application – Contempt filed 29 April 2022 is dismissed.

2. Within 28 days of the date of these Orders, each party shall file and serve written submissions of no more than 5 pages in relation to the Respondent Father’s application that the Applicant Mother be prohibited from instituting further proceedings without leave pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).

3. Judgment in relation to the Respondent Father’s application pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Act will be reserved thereafter to a date and time to be advised by Chambers.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	WOC 772 of 2011
Judgment of:	JUDGE LIOUMIS
Date of judgment:	19 January 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Where the Applicant alleges 13 grounds of contempt by the Respondent – Where no prima facie case is found in relation to any of the grounds – Where the parties are invited to provide written submissions as to the Respondent’s application that the Applicant be prohibited from instituting further proceedings without leave pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where both children are adults at the date of hearing
Legislation:	Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 69ZK, 102NA, 102QB, 112AP Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 11.71
Cases cited:	Carlson & Carlson [2020] FamCA 108 Pitman & Hynes [2021] FamCA 300 Pitman & Hynes (No 2) [2018] FamCA 1015 Pitman & Hynes (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 373
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	138
Date of hearing:	5–6 October 2023
Place:	Wollongong
For the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Hill of Counsel
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Fletch Law

WOC 772 of 2011
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS PITMAN Applicant
AND:	MR HYNES Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE LIOUMIS
DATE OF ORDER:	19 JANUARY 2024