SEDLEY & SEDLEY - [2018] FamCA 315

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SEDLEY & SEDLEY

[2018] FamCA 315

ORDERS – Contravention – where the final parenting orders drawn by the parties required mutual communication and non-denigration – where the wife failed to comply but argued the breaches were insignificant. Where as a group, the braches indicate a lack of respect and ignoring of the importance of the husband’s parenting role – where the appropriate order is a costs order.

CHILDREN – Parenting – where the parties agree to attend a psychologist but the husband still seeks findings on the contributions.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

McClintock and Levier (2009) FLC 93-401
Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison [2018] NSWSC 633

APPLICANT:

Mr Sedley

RESPONDENT:

Ms Sedley

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

6870

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

11 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

8, 9 May 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Atkinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Coote Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Holmes

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Berry Family Law

Orders

That UPON FINDING the wife breached the parenting orders, she pay the husband’s costs fixed at $8600.
That otherwise, the contravention application filed 9 March 2018 is dismissed.
That BY CONSENT the parties (and if required, they bring the children) attend upon Mr B for the purpose of family therapy, such attendances to be non-reportable and the costs of all such attendances be shared equally.
That Mr B be provided with the reasons for judgment and these orders by either party.
That the exhibits be returned.

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 Sedley & Sedley 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6870 of 2015

Mr Sedley

Applicant

And

Ms Sedley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Sedley (“the husband”) alleges Ms Sedley (“the wife”) breached parenting orders made on 16 February 2017 on six occasions. To each allegation, the wife responded with a denial.
Having heard both parties cross-examined by counsel (each for the other), I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that each allegation has been proved. These are my reasons.
Final parenting orders were made by Johns J on 16 February 2017 at a time when both parents had legal representation. The court then also had the assistance of an Independent Children’s Lawyer who supported the orders. Those orders were drawn by the parties and each consented to them; that is, the court was told that these orders were…

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 SEDLEY & SEDLEY

Details

AGLC: SEDLEY & SEDLEY [2018] FamCA 315
Case: [2018] FamCA 315
Decision Date: 11 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Sedley & Sedley*, heard by Cronin J, the husband sought orders for contravention of final parenting orders, alleging the wife had breached provisions requiring mutual communication and non-denigration. The wife conceded some breaches but argued they were insignificant. The husband also sought findings on contributions, notwithstanding the parties' agreement to attend family therapy.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife's conduct constituted a contravention of the final parenting orders. A secondary issue concerned the husband's continued pursuit of findings on contributions in circumstances where the parties had agreed to engage in family therapy.

Cronin J found that the wife had indeed breached the parenting orders. His Honour reasoned that while individual breaches might appear minor, collectively they demonstrated a lack of respect for the husband's parenting role and an disregard for the importance of their agreed communication protocols. Consequently, the court determined that a costs order was the appropriate remedy for the contravention. The court also noted the parties' consent to attend family therapy, which was to be non-reportable and with costs shared equally.

The court ordered that the wife pay the husband's costs fixed at $8,600. The contravention application was otherwise dismissed. The parties were ordered to attend family therapy by consent, and Mr B was to be provided with the reasons for judgment and the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

That UPON FINDING the wife breached the parenting orders, she pay the husband’s costs fixed at $8600.

That otherwise, the contravention application filed 9 March 2018 is dismissed.

That BY CONSENT the parties (and if required, they bring the children) attend upon Mr B for the purpose of family therapy, such attendances to be non-reportable and the costs of all such attendances be shared equally.

That Mr B be provided with the reasons for judgment and these orders by either party.

That the exhibits be returned.

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

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.