WOLTER & WOLTER

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WOLTER & WOLTER [2015] FamCA 338

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – RECOVERY ORDER – where order made with warrant to issue if child not returned – where child not returned – where appropriate for warrant to issue – orders made accordingly.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – where previous order for security for costs – where costs assessed in specific sums – where application for costs to be paid out of security sum – orders accordingly - no orders for costs.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where application in a case filed – where no application for final orders pending – where application seeks orders varying final parenting orders, orders varying final property orders and alleges various contraventions – where orders set out in application poor in form and nonsensical – where applicant proposes to file proper application commencing proceedings – where appropriate to dismiss application in a case – application in a case struck out and dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 67U, 67V, 79, 117(2A)
APPLICANT: Ms Wolter
RESPONDENT: Mr Wolter
FILE NUMBER: SYC 5747 of 2009
DATE DELIVERED: 30 April 2015
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Foster J
HEARING DATE: 30 April 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Watkins
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Shipton & Associates Solicitors
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

As to the Application in a Case filed on 24 February 2015:

  1. The recovery order made on 21 April 2015 issue forthwith for a period of 12 months.

  2. So as to facilitate the implementation of the recovery order, the Father be restrained from attending at, upon or near the school premises attended by all three children except for the purposes of implementing changeovers as provided for in orders made on 21 December 2012.

  3. The above order is an order made for the protection of the children pursuant to section 68B of the Act to which a power of arrest without warrant will attach pursuant to the provisions of 68C of the Act.

  4. In the event that the Associate in Chambers is notified by the Mother’s legal representative that the subject child has been returned to her care at the close of the school day today, and notwithstanding the recovery order has issued a request will be made for the recovery order in those circumstances not to be executed except in circumstances where the Father again retains the child or children contrary to the provisions of the orders made on 21 December 2012.

  5. The Mother’s costs of this application are reserved and in the event of any application for costs the Mother file and serve any written submissions within one month from today’s date and that the Respondent Father file and serve any written submissions in response within 14 days thereafter and thereafter judgment is reserved.

  6. Either party has liberty to reapply as to the above orders by properly made application to the Registrar on short notice in appropriate circumstances.

As to the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read WOLTER & WOLTER and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] FamCA 338
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the father and mother of three children. The primary dispute concerned the enforcement of parenting orders, specifically a recovery order that had been made but not yet executed. There was also a dispute regarding the payment of costs from a security sum previously ordered. The court was the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Foster J.

The court was required to determine whether a previously issued recovery order should be enforced, given that the child had not been returned as required. Additionally, the court had to consider an application for costs to be paid from a security sum previously ordered, and the appropriate course of action for an "application in a case" that sought to vary final parenting and property orders and alleged contraventions, but was poorly drafted.

Foster J reasoned that the recovery order should issue forthwith due to the child not being returned, and made ancillary orders to facilitate its implementation, including restraining the father from attending the children's school except for changeovers. The court also made orders for the payment of assessed costs from a security sum held by the wife's solicitors. Regarding the poorly drafted "application in a case," the court found it to be nonsensical in form and substance, and that the applicant intended to file a proper application. Consequently, the court determined it was appropriate to dismiss this application.

The court ordered that the recovery order issue forthwith for 12 months, with specific provisions for its execution and potential suspension if the child was returned. The father was ordered to pay assessed costs from a security sum. The poorly drafted application in a case was struck out and dismissed. All other applications before the court were dismissed, save for the question of costs relating to the recovery application.

Orders

Orders of the court

As to the Application in a Case filed on 24 February 2015:

1.

The recovery order made on 21 April 2015 issue forthwith for a period of 12 months.

2.

So as to facilitate the implementation of the recovery order, the Father be restrained from attending at, upon or near the school premises attended by all three children except for the purposes of implementing changeovers as provided for in orders made on 21 December 2012.

3.

The above order is an order made for the protection of the children pursuant to section 68B of the Act to which a power of arrest without warrant will attach pursuant to the provisions of 68C of the Act.

4.

In the event that the Associate in Chambers is notified by the Mother’s legal representative that the subject child has been returned to her care at the close of the school day today, and notwithstanding the recovery order has issued a request will be made for the recovery order in those circumstances not to be executed except in circumstances where the Father again retains the child or children contrary to the provisions of the orders made on 21 December 2012.

5.

The Mother’s costs of this application are reserved and in the event of any application for costs the Mother file and serve any written submissions within one month from today’s date and that the Respondent Father file and serve any written submissions in response within 14 days thereafter and thereafter judgment is reserved.

6.

Either party has liberty to reapply as to the above orders by properly made application to the Registrar on short notice in appropriate circumstances.

As to the Application in a Case filed on 30 October 2014:

7.

That costs payable by the Father pursuant to orders made on 22 September 2014 together with interest accrued thereon be paid to the Wife or as she may direct her solicitor in writing from the present funds held by the Wife’s solicitors as provided for in Order 5 made on 22 July 2014.

8.

The Wife’s application for costs as to this application is dismissed.

As to the Application in a Case filed on 8 December 2014:

9.

The Application is struck out and dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

10.

Save for the question of costs as to the recovery application, all applications before the Court be dismissed.

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.