Rand and Rand - [2007] FamCA 1674

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAND & RAND

[2007] FamCA 1674

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT - Contravention of Court order

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Blair & Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Ibbotsen & Wincen (1994) FLC 92-496

APPLICANT:

MS S RAND

RESPONDENT:

MR M RAND

FILE NUMBER:

SYF

2153

2001

DATE DELIVERED:

25 JUNE 2007

PLACE DELIVERED:

PARRAMATTA

PLACE HEARD:

SYDNEY

JUDGMENT OF:

COLLIER J

HEARING DATE:

20 June 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

MR RICHARDSON S.C.

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Adrian Twigg & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR MAIDEN S.C.

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Benjamin & Robinson

Orders

That the Court finds each of the contempts alleged against the husband proven.
That the parties to approach the listing director of this registry for a date to deal with the sentencing aspect of this matter. Having regard to the time spent to date in this matter I believe that half a day will be required for that purpose.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rand & Rand is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: SYF2153 of 2001

MS S RAND

Applicant

And

MR M RAND

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The matter before me for judgment today is the application of the wife filed on 1 February 2007. That application seeks that the husband be dealt with for contempt on the following basis: that the husband, Mr M Rand, failed to comply with order 3 made on 10 January 2006, and further that he failed to comply with the conditions of a bond imposed upon him on 24 October 2006.
The husband filed an application in a case in Court seeking, inter alia, that the application of the wife be adjourned, in effect, pending further order. I dealt with that application and refused it. The hearing of the contempt application then proceeded.

Brief Background

A brief background to this matter is as follows. On 10 January 2006 Rowlands J delivered judgment in this matter. The hearing of the matter had commenced on 9 September 2002 and over several stanzas had proceeded to its conclusion on 25 November 2005. The husband subsequently appealed his Honour's decision, but, unable to provide security for costs as required, the appeal was subsequently dismissed. There are on foot appeals by other respondents in the proceedings which have been, as I understand it, heard by the full Court of the Family Court, but in respect of which judgment is still pending.
On 3 October 2006 Judicial Registrar Loughnan heard an application by the wife filed on 11 May 2006. The Judicial Registrar proceeded by way of contravention in his hearing. The Judicial Registrar found the contravention made out and adjourned the matter to deal with the issue of sanctions on 24 October 2006. On 24 October 2006 the husband was ordered to enter into a bond with various conditions. The bond was to have…

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 Rand and Rand

Details

AGLC: Rand and Rand [2007] FamCA 1674
Case: [2007] FamCA 1674
Decision Date: 25 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Rand and Rand*, Collier J of the Family Court of Australia considered allegations of contempt of court brought against the husband. The proceedings concerned the husband's alleged breaches of court orders.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the husband had committed contempt of court by failing to comply with the orders previously made.

Collier J found that each of the contempts alleged against the husband had been proven. The Court determined that the husband's conduct amounted to a wilful disregard of the Court's orders.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the parties were to approach the listing director to schedule a date for the sentencing of the husband. Collier J estimated that half a day would be required to deal with this aspect of the matter, taking into account the time already expended.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Court finds each of the contempts alleged against the husband proven.

That the parties to approach the listing director of this registry for a date to deal with the sentencing aspect of this matter. Having regard to the time spent to date in this matter I believe that half a day will be required for that purpose.

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.