Sathra and Sathra - [2012] FamCA 112

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SATHRA & SATHRA

[2012] FamCA 112

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION - where the father alleges the mother has contravened interim parenting orders on four separate occasions – whether the mother has “contravened an order” – where the mother contravened the orders on the four occasions alleged by the father – whether the mother had “reasonable excuse” – where the mother had “reasonable excuse” in respect of three of the four alleged contraventions – where the mother contravened the orders without reasonable excuse on one of the occasions alleged by the father – where the mother’s contravention is a “less serious contravention” – where the mother has not “behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard” in respect of her obligations – where no penalty ordered in respect of the established contravention – whether the mother should be ordered to pay costs pursuant to s 70NEB(1)(g) – whether the father should be ordered to pay costs pursuant to ss 70NCB and 70NEB(7) – where both parties are self-represented – where no order for costs made against either party.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Childers & Leslie (2008) 39 FamLR 379
In the Marriage of Gaunt (1978) 4 FamLR 305
The Northern Territory of Australia v GPAO and Others (1999) 196 CLR 553

APPLICANT:

Mr Sathra

RESPONDENT:

Ms Sathra

FILE NUMBER:

SYF

5076

2003

DATE DELIVERED:

12 March 2012

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Murphy J

HEARING DATE:

29 February 2012

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

Orders

That in respect of the Application for Contravention of parenting orders filed by the father on 19 August 2011:
(a)The contravention alleged to have occurred on 27 May 2011 is dismissed.
(b)The contraventions occurring on 8 April 2011 and 24 June 2011 are dismissed by reason of the respondent mother having a “reasonable excuse” on 8 April 2011 and 24 June 2011; and
(c)The contravention occurring on 5 August 2011 is established and the mother does not establish reasonable excuse.
That in respect of the contravention occurring 5 August 2011 no order be made and no penalty be imposed.

IT IS NOTED THAT:

The trial of parenting issues between these parties will be heard by Watts J commencing 4 June 2012.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYF5076 of 2003

Mr Sathra

Applicant

And

Ms Sathra

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings are the latest instalment in about nine years of litigation between these parties. Their children, who are the subject of the instant contravention proceedings, are M (born … .1.98) who is now 14, and L (born … .3.00) who is almost 12.
It will be observed that the conflict between their parents has pertained for the…

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 Sathra and Sathra

Details

AGLC: Sathra and Sathra [2012] FamCA 112
Case: [2012] FamCA 112
Decision Date: 12 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Sathra and Sathra*, heard before Murphy J, the father applied to the court alleging contraventions of parenting orders by the mother. The application concerned alleged contraventions on 27 May 2011, 8 April 2011, 24 June 2011, and 5 August 2011.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the mother had contravened the parenting orders as alleged by the father. If contraventions were found, the court was then required to determine whether the mother had established a reasonable excuse for any such contraventions, and if so, what orders or penalties, if any, should be made.

Murphy J dismissed the alleged contravention on 27 May 2011. For the contraventions on 8 April 2011 and 24 June 2011, the court found that the mother had a reasonable excuse, thereby dismissing these allegations. However, the court established that the mother had contravened the parenting orders on 5 August 2011, and found that she had not established a reasonable excuse for this specific contravention. Despite establishing this contravention, no order was made and no penalty was imposed by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

That in respect of the Application for Contravention of parenting orders filed by the father on 19 August 2011:

(a) The contravention alleged to have occurred on 27 May 2011 is dismissed.

(b) The contraventions occurring on 8 April 2011 and 24 June 2011 are dismissed by reason of the respondent mother having a “reasonable excuse” on 8 April 2011 and 24 June 2011; and

That in respect of the contravention occurring 5 August 2011 no order be made and no penalty be imposed.

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.