RAMZI & HADAD

[2020] FamCA 708

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAMZI & HADAD [2020] FamCA 708

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where Application – Contravention discloses no alleged breach nor any reference to the orders asserted to be breached – Where application struck out and dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Ramzi

RESPONDENT: Ms Hadad

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5991 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 14 July 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: 14 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT – SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT: Mr Ramzi

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms McCleary appearing on a duty basis

Orders Made On 14 July 2020

1. The Application – Contravention filed 28 April 2020 is dismissed.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ramzi & Hadad has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5991 of 2016

Mr Ramzi

Applicant

And

Ms Hadad

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings are related to an Application – Contravention filed by the applicant father on 28 April 2020.  The application is supported by an affidavit, which appears to have been sworn by the father on 4 September 2018 and filed in Court on 4 September 2018.  There is no explanation as to the gap between the date of the affidavit and/or the application itself, however, the Application – Contravention is a document that effectively commences as if it were quasi criminal proceedings that seek remedies as against the respondent that can involve imprisonment, the imposition of a good-behaviour bond, or other orders supportive and remedying any alleged breach.

2. However, the application in itself is defective in that in paragraph 6 there are no particulars as to any parenting order that is deemed, or sought, alleged to have been contravened, nor in paragraph 7 of the application is there any details – precise details – of the conduct or actions of the respondent that are said to comprise a contravention of any Court orders that may be referred to. 

3. In all of the circumstances, the Court has no alternative but to dismiss the Application - Contravention.  Having said that, it does not prevent the father from filing a fresh application in proper form, should he be so advised.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Foster delivered on 14 July 2020.

Associate: 

Date:  14 July 2020