Poyzer & Tritton

In the matter of *Poyzer & Tritton*, Dawe J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning property settlement and interim matters relating to a child. The dispute involved allegations of harassment and the need to establish arrangements for the child's schooling.

The court was required to determine whether to impose interim orders restraining the wife's conduct, specifically her attendance at a particular centre and her contact with a third party, pending the final resolution of the property settlement proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to address urgent interim arrangements for the child's schooling.

Dawe J reasoned that the imposition of a bond was necessary to ensure the wife's compliance with interim orders preventing her from attending the M Centre and initiating contact with Ms O. This measure was deemed appropriate to maintain the status quo and prevent further alleged harassment. The court also directed the parties to attend upon a Family Consultant as a matter of urgency to discuss the child's schooling arrangements, or alternatively, to engage an independent mediator if an urgent appointment with a Family Consultant could not be secured.

The court ordered that the wife enter into a bond, to be effective until the conclusion of evidence in the property settlement proceedings, on the conditions that she not attend the M Centre in South Australia and not initiate any contact with Ms O. The wife was directed to sign this bond before a registrar of the Court on the day of the hearing. The court also scheduled a mention for interim child matters on 16 April 2009 and directed the parties to engage with a Family Consultant or mediator regarding the child's schooling.