STRADFORD & STRADFORD (No.2)

[2018] FCCA 3961

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRADFORD & STRADFORD (No.2) [2018] FCCA 3961

Catchwords:

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Appeal – stay, pending an appeal – application granted.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975

Cases cited:

N/A

Applicant: MR STRADFORD

Respondent: MS STRADFORD

File Number: BRC 3444 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Vasta

Hearing date: 12 December 2018

Date of Last Submission: 12 December 2018

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 12 December 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Bunning

The Respondent appearing on her own behalf

ORDERS

1. That the Husband’s oral application for a Stay of Order 1 of the Orders of Judge Vasta dated 6 December 2018 is allowed.

2. That Order 1 of the Orders of Judge Vasta of 6 December 2018 is Stayed pending the outcome of the Appeal of that Order and Declaration A of the Orders of 6 December 2018

3. That pending the outcome of the Appeal, or further Order, the Husband be forthwith released from custody.

4. That the solicitors for the Husband may convey a copy of this Order immediately to the Queensland Corrective Services, the J Correctional Centre of the Queensland Police Service.

IT IS NOTED:

(A)That to avoid any confusion, the granting of the Stay of Order 1 of the Orders of Judge Vasta of 6 December 2018 means that the Order is no longer in effect as of today, 12 December 2018 and the Husband can be released from custody forthwith, pending the hearing of the Appeal of the Orders of 6 December 2018.

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 3444 of 2017

MR STRADFORD

Applicant

And

MS STRADFORD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore)

1. On 6 December 2018, I made an order that Mr Stradford was in contempt of orders that I had previously made on 10 August 2018. 

2. Specifically, I found him in contempt of order 3(a), (h), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n) and (o) of those orders.  I had actually not found him in contempt of orders 3(k) or 3(l), but had found him in contempt of the others. 

3. My reason for doing so was that I had been given a list with markings from Her Honour, Judge Turner.  My reasons for having made the orders on 10 August 2018 were to tell the Applicant husband that he needed to make this disclosure properly, especially since there had been previous orders for him to do so. 

4. My notation was that the matter would go back to a duty judge; but if the duty judge was of the opinion that the Applicant has not made full and frank disclosure in accordance with today’s orders, that he was to be dealt with for contempt of those orders. 

5. That was to allow that Court to then deal with the contempt, or, if the Court so chose, they could send the matter back to me and I…