Wilson and Mason (No. 3)

[2009] FamCA 399

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILSON & MASON (NO. 3) [2009] FamCA 399

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Contempt application dismissed

APPLICANT: Mr Wilson

RESPONDENT: Ms Mason

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6729 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 24 April 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Dessau J

HEARING DATE: 24 April 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: NA

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: NA

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That the application filed by the father on 8 April 2009 shall be dismissed.

2. That the transcript of my reasons shall remain on the Court file.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6729 of 2007

MR WILSON

Applicant

And

MS MASON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me today an application filed by Mr Wilson.  It's called an Application for Contempt.  It refers to evidence given by the wife before me on 27 March this year.  He asserts in his application that:

   …she confessed to deliberately and calculatedly falsifying her original application to the court, in order to deceive and mislead.

2. He also asserts that:

   [the wife] admitted to deliberately deceiving the court in that original application for the "recovery" of our second son, [N], on the basis that I was NOT his [N’s] father (or parent) and that she did NOT know who his father was.  She boasted of her gross deception, showed no remorse and flagrantly showed her contempt.

3. The wife has not yet been served with the application, or if she has, there is no evidence of service before me.  In any event, having read the material, I do not propose allowing the application to proceed further.

4. The husband says that if I adjourn the case for him to obtain the transcript, that I might take a different view, but in fact I would not.  In my view, this application is ill-conceived and it is not what the contempt provisions are designed for.

5. In his more detailed material in his affidavit, he refers to the wife having committed perjury.  I have explained to him that that is something that he wants to bring to the attention of the appropriate authorities, he may do so.

6. In my reasons for judgment given on 27 March, I noted the very unhappy history in relation to this case.  There is currently an appeal pending.  That is the husband’s appeal against the final orders made by Young J by consent on 19 December 2008.  I know that the husband is very unhappy with the orders, and I know there is a great of material that he wants to raise.  He can raise relevant issues before the Full Court, but this “Contempt Application” is certainly not in his children's best interests and, as I said, is entirely ill-conceived.  The application shall be dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dessau

Associate: 

Date:  24 April 2009