Short & Trevilian (No. 7)

In this matter before Dawe J, the husband was alleged to have contravened various orders of the Court concerning his contact with a child, S. The wife alleged that the husband had removed S from boarding school contrary to court orders, and that he had spent time with S unsupervised on multiple occasions, including taking S to a supermarket and playing tennis with her without the required supervision. The husband did not admit to these contraventions.

The court was required to determine whether the husband had contravened the specific orders as alleged by the wife, and if so, whether he had a reasonable excuse for these contraventions. A key issue was the standard of proof applicable to these allegations, particularly in light of the potential consequences for the husband, including the possibility of criminal penalties. The court also considered the application of provisions relating to contraventions and the discretion to apply rules of evidence in serious cases.

Dawe J found that the husband had contravened the court orders on several occasions. Specifically, the husband was found to have committed contempt of court by removing S from boarding school, which was considered a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the husband had contravened an order by taking S to a supermarket unsupervised, and on the balance of probabilities, that he had contravened orders by having unsupervised contact with S on other occasions, including playing tennis with her. The court found that the husband did not have a reasonable excuse for these contraventions and that his conduct demonstrated a serious disregard for his obligations.

The proceedings were adjourned to allow the parties to consider the court's reasons and to prepare submissions regarding penalties and consequences.