Stradford and Stradford - [2018] FCCA 3890

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRADFORD & STRADFORD

[2018] FCCA 3890

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Contempt –non-compliance with orders – imprisonment sentence imposed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Applicant:

MR STRADFORD

Respondent:

MS STRADFORD

File Number:

BRC 3444 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Vasta

Hearing date:

6 December 2018

Date of Last Submission:

6 December 2018

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

6 December 2018

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant in person

The Respondent in Person

ORDERS

THE COURT DECLARES:

A. That MR STRADFORD is in contempt of Order 3(a), (h), (j), (m), (n) and (o) of Orders made by Judge Vasta on 10 August 2018 in that MR STRADFORD has failed to make full and frank financial disclosure.

THE COURT ORDERS:

That the Applicant MR STRADFORD be sentenced to a period of imprisonment in the X Correctional Centre for a period of twelve (12) months, to be served immediately with the Applicant to be released from prison on … 2019, with the balance of the sentence to be suspended for a period of two (2) years from today’s date.
That the E Bank account “Company D” account number … be frozen until further Order.
That this matter otherwise be adjourned to a date to be advised for a final hearing of not more than one (1) day in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

IT IS NOTED:

A. That the final hearing of this matter is not to occur until after … 2019.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 344 of 2017

MR STRADFORD

Applicant

And

MS STRADFORD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore)

On 7 April 2017, the Applicant, MR STRADFORD, applied to this Court for financial adjustment of property. The wife filed her response on 6 June 2017.
The matter went before Her Honour Judge Spelleken on a first Court date. What occurred there was that Her Honour made certain orders with relation to the property that would see certain properties sold and the value of the pool would become readily recognisable.
Her Honour ordered, in her orders, that there be disclosure by both parties as to the matters that are usually disclosed and attached to the usual annexure A. The matter was adjourned for a conciliation conference to occur at a time to be provided. That conciliation conference was then set to be held on 28 July 2017, before Registrar Clarke.
The matter did not end up being able to be resolved and Registrar Clarke told Her Honour that. The matter then was adjourned to September 2017, where Her Honour made some trial directions.
Because of the way in which the Brisbane pilot project occurred, Her Honour mentioned the matter on 12 February 2018 and on 20 April 2018. The matter was finally mentioned by Her Honour on 19 June 2018. On that day, Her Honour had adjourned…

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 Stradford and Stradford

Details

AGLC: Stradford and Stradford [2018] FCCA 3890
Case: [2018] FCCA 3890
Decision Date: 6 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Stradford and Stradford*, Judge Vasta of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application concerning alleged contempt of court. The applicant, Mr Stradford, was found to be in contempt of specific orders made on 10 August 2018, primarily for failing to make full and frank financial disclosure as required by those orders.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Stradford's conduct constituted a contempt of the previously issued court orders. This involved an assessment of whether he had indeed failed to provide complete and honest financial information as mandated by the court.

Judge Vasta reasoned that Mr Stradford's failure to comply with the disclosure obligations amounted to a wilful disregard of the court's authority, thereby constituting contempt. In response to this finding, the court declared Mr Stradford in contempt of several specific provisions of the 10 August 2018 orders. The court then sentenced Mr Stradford to twelve months imprisonment, with the sentence to be served immediately, but with the balance suspended for two years. Additionally, an order was made to freeze a specific bank account held by "Company D" until further order, and the matter was adjourned for a final hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT DECLARES:

THE COURT ORDERS:

That the Applicant MR STRADFORD be sentenced to a period of imprisonment in the X Correctional Centre for a period of twelve (12) months, to be served immediately with the Applicant to be released from prison on … 2019, with the balance of the sentence to be suspended for a period of two (2) years from today’s date.

That the E Bank account “Company D” account number … be frozen until further Order.

That this matter otherwise be adjourned to a date to be advised for a final hearing of not more than one (1) day in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

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.