Ramsay and Wade (No.4) - [2014] FCCA 2333

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAMSAY & WADE (No.4)

[2014] FCCA 2333

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Children – contravention of parenting orders – contravention without reasonable excuse – less serious contravention – where no court has previously made an order imposing a sanction or taking an action in respect of a contravention by the respondent – appropriate sanction – whether a bond appropriate – post-separation parenting program – whether order should be made under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s.70NEB(a) – purpose of applying sanctions for contravention of parenting orders – two-fold purpose – education of parties about the necessity to comply with parenting orders – indication of disapproval of contravention of orders – imposition of a bond – length of time for bond to operate – 2 years unduly harsh.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.70NEA, 70NEB, 70NEC

Cases cited:
Elspeth & Peter; Mark & Peter and John & Peter (Penalty and Costs) [2007] FamCA 1072
McClintock & Levier [2009] FamCAFC 62; (2009) 41 Fam LR 245; FLC 93-401; 233 FLR 179
Ramsay & Wade [2014] FCCA 1431
Ramsay & Wade (No.3) [2014] FCCA 2051
Stubbs & Stubbs [2013] FamCA 427

Applicant:

MS RAMSAY

Respondent:

MS WADE

File Number:

SYC 5648 of 2012

Judgment of:

Judge Scarlett

Hearing date:

9 October 2014

Date of Last Submission:

9 October 2014

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

9 October 2014

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Mr Reeve

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Marsdens Law Group

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Murphy (direct brief)

ORDERS

The Respondent Mother is required to enter into a bond under the provisions of section 70NEC of the Family Law Act, without surety or security, for a period of 12 months from today on condition that she be of good behaviour during the term of the bond.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ramsay & Wade (No.4) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYC 5648 of 2012

MS RAMSAY

Applicant

And

MS WADE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have heard submissions from Mr Reeve for the Applicant, and from Ms Murphy of Counsel for the Respondent in respect of the appropriate sanctions which should be applied in respect of six findings of contravention of parenting orders. On 8^th July 2014 I found that the Respondent Mother did, on various dates between 20^th February 2014 and 16^th March 2014 contravene two sets of orders that were made on 19^th December 2012, and varied 7^th February 2013[1]. I handed down a decision on that point and granted the Mother leave to file and serve an affidavit setting out the facts upon which she sought to rely in support of any contention that she may wish to make that she had a reasonable excuse for all or any of the eight contraventions that were found.
[1] Ramsay & Wade [2014] FCCA 1431
I would note that…

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 Ramsay and Wade (No.4)

Details

AGLC: Ramsay and Wade (No.4) [2014] FCCA 2333
Case: [2014] FCCA 2333
Decision Date: 9 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ramsay and Wade (No.4)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Respondent Mother concerning her conduct. The specific nature of the dispute leading to this application is not detailed in the provided text, but it resulted in a court order concerning the Respondent Mother's behaviour.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Respondent Mother should be required to enter into a bond under section 70NEC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This section pertains to the Court's power to order a person to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour.

The Court determined that the Respondent Mother was required to enter into such a bond. The reasoning for this decision, based on the limited text provided, appears to stem from a finding that such an order was necessary to ensure her good behaviour. The Court exercised its discretion under section 70NEC of the *Family Law Act*.

Consequently, the Court ordered the Respondent Mother to enter into a bond, without surety or security, for a period of 12 months from the date of the order, on the condition that she be of good behaviour during that term.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent Mother is required to enter into a bond under the provisions of section 70NEC of the Family Law Act, without surety or security, for a period of 12 months from today on condition that she be of good behaviour during the term of the bond.

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.