Procedural Fairness in Parenting Contraventions: Can a trial stand when a self-represented contravention is ignored and oral reasons are impermissibly rewritten?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Crabman & Crabman (No. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 146, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. Source file: Crabman & Crabman (No. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 146. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, sitting at Brisbane via videolink

Presiding Judge: Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan and Tree JJ

Cause of Action: Family law appeal concerning parenting contraventions, procedural fairness, and alleged apprehended bias

Judgment Date: 12 June 2020

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Procedural fairness

Keyword 3: Contravention of parenting orders

Keyword 4: Self-represented litigants

Keyword 5: Editing of oral reasons

Keyword 6: Apprehended bias

Background

This appeal unfolded in a familiar but emotionally charged setting: separated parents trying to co-parent three children across conflict, distance, and disappointment. The practical problem began when the Respondent relocated with the children from Brisbane to another city in January 2018. That move made the existing weekend time regime with the Appellant difficult to maintain. It also occurred after a longer pattern of missed or disrupted time between the children and the Appellant.

As the conflict escalated, two proceedings effectively collided. One was a contravention application alleging repeated breaches of parenting orders. The other was an application to vary parenting orders, including a proposal that the children return to Brisbane. The hearing in the lower court was conducted with both parties self-represented, which made the fairness of the process not a side issue, but the central spine of the case.

This Chapter does not reveal the outcome. It sets the stage: a case about parenting time, but even more about whether the Court process was run in a way that allowed each party, especially the self-represented Appellant, a real chance to be heard.

Core Disputes and Claims

The legal focus was not simply whether parenting orders were breached. The Court was required to determine whether the lower court process was fair and lawful in how it dealt with:

1. The contravention application under Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including whether the required procedure was followed.
2. The parenting variation application, including whether the contravention issues were properly treated as relevant to future parenting arrangements.
3. The allegation of apprehended bias, including whether interventions and reasoning created a reasonable apprehension that the lower court judge might not decide impartially.
4. The integrity of judicial reasons, including whether published reasons impermissibly changed the substance of oral reasons.

Relief sought:

The Appellant sought that the lower court orders be set aside and the matter reheard. The Respondent opposed that relief and defended the orders, while also seeking to maintain the parenting arrangements aligned with the reduced school-term time and longer holiday time approach.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The parties were the parents of three children. After separation, the children maintained relationships with both parents, and the evidence accepted on appeal suggested the children felt loved by each. But parental harmony was fragile. When time arrangements break down repeatedly, the dispute is rarely only about diaries and pickup points. It becomes about trust, control, blame, and the fear of losing a meaningful place in the children’s lives.

In this case, the Appellant’s lived reality was that time under orders was often not happening, even before the relocation. Some children attended some visits, then none, then some again. This creates a grinding uncertainty that can erode a parent’s confidence and the children’s routine. Against that backdrop, the Respondent relocated with the children from Brisbane to another city. Distance turned a pattern of conflict into a structural barrier: weekend time became impracticable in the old form, and every missed weekend became harder to repair.

The decisive moments that led to litigation were practical, cumulative, and predictable:

1. Orders existed requiring regular time.
2. Time was not reliably occurring.
3. Relocation increased the obstacles.
4. The parties could not resolve the new living arrangement.
5. The Appellant filed a contravention application, then sought variation of the parenting orders, including a Brisbane-based proposal.

The parties’ inability to resolve the dispute outside Court meant the hearing was meant to do two things at once: hold the line on compliance with past orders, and redraw the map for future arrangements. When those two tasks are blended without clear procedure, the risk is that the Court decides the future while never fairly determining the past allegations that explain why the future arrangements matter.

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Appellant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The Appellant relied on a structured account of alleged non-compliance with parenting orders. The contravention material, as later described by the Full Court, was well prepared. The Appellant’s case was not framed as a single missed weekend. It was framed as an extensive pattern, pleaded as 39 alleged contraventions, with the practical consequence that the children’s relationship with the Appellant was being thinned by repeated non-availability.

The Appellant also sought parenting variation orders. The central theme was restoration of workable time and, if necessary, relocation back to Brisbane so that routine time could resume. The Appellant’s position on where the children should live was conditional: if the Respondent lived in Brisbane, the children could live with the Respondent; if not, the children should live with the Appellant. That conditionality matters because it shows the dispute was not simply about winning residence, but about securing feasible parenting time.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The Respondent opposed the children returning to Brisbane and sought a reduction in school-term time with the Appellant to one weekend per month, offset by longer school holiday time. On the contravention allegations, the Respondent broadly agreed about when the children were not made available but asserted a reasonable excuse for most alleged breaches.

This combination is common in parenting litigation: agreement on the events, disagreement on what they mean legally and what should be done next. It is also common for a party to accept that orders were not complied with, but resist punitive outcomes by arguing reasonable excuse, practical difficulty, or child-related reasons.

Core Dispute Points

1. Whether the Respondent contravened parenting orders, and if so, whether there was a reasonable excuse.
2. Whether the Court should order compensatory time, sanctions, or other outcomes under Division 13A.
3. Whether the relocation and history of missed time justified varying orders in a way that changed where the children lived.
4. Whether the hearing process used in the lower court was fair to both parties, especially given self-representation.
5. Whether the published reasons could be treated as the authentic reasons if they differed materially from the oral reasons.

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits are not just containers of facts. They are a strategy document written in the language of proof. In this case, the affidavits served two competing narratives built from the same building blocks.

The Appellant’s affidavit strategy was essentially a compliance map: dates, events, missed changeovers, and the lived impact on the parent-child relationship. When a contravention is alleged, detail is power. Specificity narrows the space for denial and forces the dispute into the legal tests: Was there a failure to comply, and if so, what excuse exists?

The Respondent’s affidavit strategy accepted much of the surface chronology but reframed it through justification. This is a common and legitimate approach: when facts are difficult to contest, the contest shifts to context, motivation, child-related reasons, or the practical consequences of relocation and conflict. The Respondent’s narrative aimed to show that the failures were not contemptuous disregard but were excused, explainable, or unavoidable.

Where affidavits become decisive is the boundary line between two kinds of statements:

1. A statement of fact that can be tested: what happened, when, who communicated, what the orders required.
2. A statement of interpretation that must be supported: why it happened, whether it was reasonable, whether the child’s interests required it.

The strategic intent behind procedural directions about affidavits in self-represented matters is simple: ensure each side understands what must be proved, what must be answered, and how the Court will structure the contest. When a judge provides clear procedural structure, the affidavits become the roadmap, not a trap.

In this case, the Full Court later emphasised that self-represented litigants require the Court to ensure they understand process. That does not mean giving legal advice. It means ensuring the hearing is run in a way that allows a fair opportunity to present, challenge, and answer the evidence.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing, the case involved procedural steps typical of parenting litigation with contravention issues:

1. Filing of a contravention application under Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. Filing of an application to vary parenting orders.
3. Preparation and filing of affidavits and case outline materials for hearing.
4. A family report process, involving attendance with a Family Consultant.
5. Listing of a final hearing across two days in the lower court.

The critical procedural arrangement that should have governed the contravention hearing was the rule-based sequence under r 25B.04 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The appellate reasons show the dispute later turned on whether that sequence was followed, departed from, or ignored, and whether any departure was explained in a way that preserved fairness.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The lower court hearing occurred with both parties self-represented. In self-represented hearings, the room can feel like a moving train: the judge is trying to keep the schedule, the parties are trying to tell their story, and the rules of evidence and procedure operate quietly in the background.

The appeal record indicated that the lower court judge outlined a general process: the Appellant would give evidence first, the Respondent could ask questions, then the Respondent would give evidence and the Appellant could ask questions, followed by addresses and a decision.

That might sound orderly, but the contravention jurisdiction has a specific procedural structure. A contravention proceeding is not merely an argument about parenting preferences. It can expose a respondent to sanctions. That is why the rule sets out sequential steps: inform the respondent of the allegation, ask for admission or denial, hear supporting evidence, ask for response, hear respondent evidence, then determine.

The Full Court later found that, after the early mention, the contravention application was not mentioned again. In practical terms, that means the case moved forward as though the contravention allegations were part of the general parenting dispute, rather than a discrete proceeding requiring its own steps and determinations.

For a self-represented litigant, the risk is acute: if the Court does not clearly separate the questions, the litigant may not know when to press their contravention case, how to prove it, or when the Court has actually decided it.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive confrontation was not a dramatic single document. It was a procedural collision:

1. The Appellant had a pleaded contravention case with extensive alleged breaches.
2. The Court did not run the rule-based contravention hearing process.
3. Orders were nevertheless made disposing of contravention issues.
4. The reasons later published contained additions that were not part of the oral reasons.

The conflict here is the ultimate litigation reality: even strong evidence cannot win if the process does not allow it to be tested and decided properly. Procedure is not decoration. Procedure is the channel that carries evidence into a legally valid outcome.

Judicial Reasoning: How the facts drove the result

The Full Court treated two judicial integrity issues as central: compliance with required contravention procedure, and the limits on editing oral reasons before publication.

The Court held that editing is permitted but not unconstrained, and the substance of oral reasons cannot be altered. It also held that where a judge departs from the required contravention process, the judge must ensure the altered process is fair and must explain it to the parties.

The determinative point was procedural fairness: the Appellant was denied a proper opportunity to be heard on the contravention application, and reasons were inadequate or absent in the oral delivery.

There is no doubt that a judge cannot change the substance of the oral reasons.

That statement mattered because it set the rule for what the appeal could rely upon: the authentic record is the oral reasons as delivered, not later-added substance.

No attempt was made to comply with r 25B.04 and the contravention application was ignored.

That statement mattered because it established the core unfairness: a litigant brought an application, indicated it remained alive, and yet it was not actually heard and determined through the required procedure.

The Court’s reasoning illustrates a critical lesson: when the process itself is defective, appellate relief can follow even if one party believes the outcome was substantively correct. A fair process is not optional. It is the foundation for public confidence and for the legitimacy of the result.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Full Court allowed the appeal.

Orders were made setting aside the lower court orders and declarations dated 6 February 2019. The proceedings were remitted for rehearing by a judge other than the primary judge. There was no order as to costs.

The Court granted costs certificates to both parties for the appeal and for the rehearing, pursuant to ss 6, 8 and 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), reflecting the Court’s assessment that it was appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise payments in respect of costs incurred.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case is jurisprudentially valuable because it exposes a quiet but decisive truth: in family law, the integrity of the process is often the most powerful form of self-protection for unrepresented parents.

The appeal was not won by rhetorical flair. It was won by identifying structural defects that prevented the Court from doing what the law required. The Appellant’s path to relief demonstrates self-agency in litigation: when you cannot control the other party, you can still control the clarity of what you ask the Court to do, the record you create, and the errors you preserve for review.

This case also underscores that judicial reasons are not malleable after the event. The moment oral reasons are delivered, they become part of the public judicial record. Editing can improve expression and correct slips, but it cannot change substance. That boundary is not technical. It is a constitutional value about the nature of judgment.

Finally, the case demonstrates the importance of procedural rules in contravention proceedings. Contravention is not merely a parenting disagreement; it is a statutory process with potential sanctions. That is why the rules prescribe a sequence, and why ignoring that sequence can amount to denial of procedural fairness.

Judgment Points

1. Editing of oral reasons is permitted but cannot alter substance.
2. Where published reasons impermissibly alter oral reasons, the appeal must be determined by reference to the oral reasons, excluding the impermissible additions.
3. The test for apprehended bias requires identification of the matter said to lead to departure from impartiality and the logical connection between that matter and the feared deviation.
4. Judicial interruptions, without more, do not necessarily establish apprehended bias.
5. A contravention hearing in the Federal Circuit Court must comply with r 25B.04, or, if the procedure is departed from, the alternative process must be explained and must be fair.
6. Ignoring a properly raised contravention application and making orders without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard is an unequivocal denial of procedural fairness.
7. Internally inconsistent findings about reasonable excuse and no reasonable excuse in relation to the same incident constitute appealable error.
8. Failure to engage with contravention issues can infect the parenting determination because contravention facts can be a relevant consideration in assessing future arrangements.

Legal Basis

The statutory and procedural framework that carried the appeal included:

1. Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part VII, Division 13A governing contraventions of parenting orders and the remedies and sanctions available.
2. Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r 25B.04 prescribing the required procedure at the hearing of a contravention application.
3. Principles governing apprehended bias, framed by authority including Johnson v Johnson and Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy.
4. Principles constraining editing of ex tempore reasons, derived from authorities including Todorovic v Moussa, Wainohu v New South Wales, and applied within family law appellate authority.
5. Appellate principle that apprehended bias must be dealt with first because it strikes at the validity of the trial process.

Evidence Chain

This case is a clear demonstration of how an appeal can be built as a chain of proof. The chain did not depend on proving every disputed parenting fact anew. It depended on proving what the lower court did and did not do.

Link 1: The Appellant filed a contravention application alleging extensive non-compliance and indicated at hearing it remained alive.

Link 2: The lower court judge outlined a general evidence process but did not apply or explain the r 25B.04 sequence.

Link 3: The contravention application was not mentioned again in the hearing process described by the Full Court.

Link 4: Oral reasons, as delivered, did not provide reasons for the disposition of the contravention application beyond stating the orders to be made.

Link 5: Published reasons contained additions not present in the oral reasons, including commentary and purported reasons.

Link 6: The appellate court treated impermissible additions as excluded, assessed the oral reasons as the authentic record, and identified denial of procedural fairness.

Link 7: The parenting determination was also affected because the contravention issues were an important integer of the Appellant’s case and a relevant consideration.

This evidence chain is the self-agency blueprint: focus on what is objectively verifiable in the record. Transcripts, timelines, and procedural rules are the most stable ground when factual disputes are emotionally charged.

Judicial Original Quotation

The test is whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend the judge might not bring an impartial mind.

This statement mattered because it framed bias as an objective legal test, not a subjective feeling of unfair treatment. It required the Appellant to identify a specific matter and a logical connection, not merely adverse outcomes or firm judicial language.

It was an unequivocal denial of procedural fairness.

This statement mattered because it was the fulcrum for setting aside the orders. It elevated the error from mere imperfection to a fundamental unfairness requiring rehearing.

The judge cannot change the substance of the oral reasons.

This statement mattered because it protected the integrity of the judicial record and prevented the published reasons from rewriting the decision after the event.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The losing party on appeal was not condemned for bringing arguments. The failure was structural: the appeal succeeded because the process below did not meet required standards.

From the perspective of how and why the Respondent’s position failed on appeal:

1. The Respondent’s defence of the lower court orders could not overcome a demonstrated denial of procedural fairness to the Appellant on the contravention application.
2. Even if the Respondent did not feel prejudiced by the procedural approach, fairness is assessed objectively and includes the applicant’s right to be heard.
3. Where published reasons were impermissibly edited, the Respondent could not rely on those additions to shore up the adequacy of reasons.
4. The internal inconsistency in findings about reasonable excuse and no reasonable excuse exposed a logic defect that could not be cured by general appeals to discretion.
5. The parenting outcome could not be insulated from the contravention defects because the contravention facts were connected to the parenting dispute, and the failure to engage with them meant a relevant consideration was overlooked.

Key to Victory

The Appellant’s decisive strengths were:

1. Clear identification that the contravention application remained live.
2. Persistence in pointing to what did not occur procedurally, rather than relying only on contested parenting facts.
3. A focused complaint about the mismatch between oral reasons and published reasons, supported by the record.
4. Use of the transcript and timeline as objective anchors.
5. Framing the appeal in terms of procedural fairness, which is a powerful appellate ground because it strikes at the validity of the process.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63: Established the two-step analysis for apprehended bias, requiring identification of the matter said to lead to departure from impartiality and the logical connection to the feared deviation.

Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48: Articulated the fair-minded lay observer test as the controlling standard for apprehended bias.

Todorovic v Moussa (2001) 53 NSWLR 463; [2001] NSWCA 419: Confirmed that revision of ex tempore reasons is permissible only where it does not alter substance.

Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181; [2011] HCA 24: Reinforced the principle that a judgment, once delivered, cannot be moulded later to reflect changing views, anchoring the public character of judicial reasons.

Caballes & Tallant (2014) FLC 93-596; [2014] FamCAFC 112: Confirmed that departure from the r 25B.04 procedure requires the judge to ensure fairness and explain the altered process to the parties.

Implications

1. If you are self-represented, your power is not limited to telling your story. Your power includes insisting on a fair process. Procedure is a form of protection you can activate.
2. In parenting disputes, do not treat contravention as a side battle. If compliance history explains why future orders matter, make that connection explicit and keep it on the record.
3. A transcript is not merely a record. It is leverage. If something important is not dealt with, the absence becomes provable.
4. When emotions rise, anchor yourself in what is verifiable: orders, dates, written communications, and the required steps the Court must follow.
5. Self-agency in litigation means making choices that preserve your future options. A clear paper trail, clear issues, and clear requests can turn confusion into reviewable error.

Q&A Session

Q1: Why did the appeal succeed even though the lower court made parenting and make-up time orders?
A1: Because the process used to deal with the contravention application did not comply with the required procedure and the Appellant was not given a fair opportunity to be heard. Where procedural fairness is denied, the validity of the orders is undermined regardless of whether some practical outcomes were ordered.

Q2: Does a judge speaking firmly to a self-represented party automatically prove bias?
A2: No. The legal test is objective and requires more than firm management of the hearing. The appellant must identify a matter that could lead the judge to depart from impartiality and the logical connection to that feared departure.

Q3: Why did the difference between oral reasons and published reasons matter so much?
A3: Because published reasons cannot change the substance of what was delivered orally. If reasons are materially altered, the appellate court can treat impermissible additions as excluded and determine the appeal on the authentic oral record. This protects the integrity of the judicial process.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

Chapter 9: Practical Positioning of This Case

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Parenting orders contravention and parenting variation appeal involving procedural fairness in a self-represented trial

Judgment Nature Definition: Final appellate judgment allowing appeal and remitting for rehearing

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This section provides a rigorous reference framework only. Outcomes tend to depend on evidence, statutory thresholds, and procedural fairness in the specific matter.

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship, Section 4AA

Duration of the relationship: The Court examines whether the relationship existed on a genuine domestic basis and, in many property jurisdiction contexts, whether it reached the general two-year threshold unless an exception applies.

Nature and extent of common residence: The Court examines whether the parties lived together, how continuously, and whether any separation periods were consistent with an ongoing domestic union.

Whether a sexual relationship exists: The Court may consider whether a sexual relationship existed, the nature of the intimacy, and whether the relationship was more than companionship.

Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: The Court examines whether one party supported the other, whether finances were pooled, and whether there were joint liabilities or mutual financial commitments.

Ownership, use and acquisition of property: The Court examines how property was acquired and used, whether assets were held jointly or separately, and whether property arrangements reflected a shared life.

Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: The Court examines evidence of commitment, planning, exclusivity, shared decision-making, and whether the parties presented as a unit over time.

The care and support of children: The Court considers whether the parties cared for children together, shared parenting responsibilities, and integrated family life.

Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: The Court examines how the relationship was perceived by family, friends, and the broader community, including whether the parties held themselves out as a couple.

Any other relevant circumstances: The Court may consider any circumstance indicating whether the relationship was on a genuine domestic basis, including cultural, practical, and personal factors shown by evidence.

Property Settlement: The Four-Step Process

Identification and Valuation: Identify the net asset pool, valuing assets and liabilities as at the relevant time. This tends to include real property, superannuation, businesses, vehicles, bank accounts, debts, and contingent liabilities.

Assessment of Contributions: Assess contributions across the whole relationship and beyond, including financial contributions at commencement, during relationship, and post-separation, non-financial contributions such as renovations or business support, and contributions to the welfare of the family such as homemaking and parenting.

Adjustment for Future Needs, Section 75(2) factors: Consider age, health, income, earning capacity, care responsibilities, standard of living, financial resources, and the practical realities that may justify a percentage adjustment. Adjustments tend to be evidence-driven and can be contested.

Just and Equitable: Conduct the final evaluative check to ensure the proposed division is fair in all the circumstances. The Court must be satisfied the order is just and equitable, not merely mathematically defensible.

Parenting Matters: Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Primary Considerations: The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents weighed against the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, with greater weight given to protection from harm.

Additional Considerations: The views of the child depending on maturity, the capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, the practical difficulty and expense of spending time, the extent to which each parent has fulfilled parental responsibilities, the likely effect of changes, and any family violence considerations where relevant.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

This section identifies alternative pathways that may be available where statutory avenues are limited. Availability tends to depend on jurisdiction, pleaded relief, and evidence.

Promissory and Proprietary Estoppel

Clear promise or representation: Examine whether one party made a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about a future state of affairs, such as property ownership, financial support, or ongoing arrangements.

Detrimental reliance: Examine whether the other party acted in reliance in a way that caused detriment, such as spending money, changing employment, moving locations, or making parenting decisions that were not easily reversible.

Unconscionability: Examine whether it would be against conscience for the promisor to resile from the promise given the reliance and detriment.

Potential result: Equity may prevent the promisor from going back on their representation and may support relief calibrated to avoid unconscionable outcomes.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Benefit at another’s expense: Examine whether one party received a benefit, such as money, labour, or improvement of an asset, at the other’s expense.

Against conscience to retain: Examine whether retention without compensation would be unjust, including where there was an expectation of shared benefit.

Potential result: Restitutionary relief may be sought, or a constructive trust may be argued to recognise beneficial interests where conscience requires it.

Procedural Fairness

Opportunity to be heard: In administrative-style decision-making within courts and tribunals, examine whether the decision-maker afforded a genuine chance to present and answer material.

Apprehension of bias: Examine whether an objective observer might reasonably apprehend lack of impartiality on the required question.

Practical application: Where procedure is irregular, relief tends to depend on showing material unfairness, such as being denied the chance to address a live issue, respond to evidence, or understand the process being applied.

Ancillary Claims

If a statutory pathway fails, consider whether the factual matrix supports an alternative cause of action that carries different burdens, such as claims based on misrepresentation, equitable relief, or procedural challenge, noting that suitability tends to be jurisdiction-specific.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

This section identifies typical hard thresholds and the exceptional channels that may still allow relief.

Regular Thresholds

De facto jurisdiction: The two-year cohabitation threshold tends to be relevant unless an exception applies.

Parenting filings: Time limits and procedural requirements tend to be governed by Court rules, directions, and case management orders, and compliance tends to be important in self-represented matters.

Contravention process: The required procedural steps under the applicable rules must be followed, and departures tend to require explanation and preserved fairness.

Exceptional Channels

Family Law: Less than two years of cohabitation may still support relief under Section 90SB if there is a child of the relationship, or if substantial contributions were made and serious injustice would otherwise result.

Procedural fairness: Even where the substantive case is contested, procedural unfairness can justify appellate intervention where a party was denied a real opportunity to be heard on a live issue.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim solely because you appear not to meet a standard threshold. Compare your circumstances carefully against exceptions and focus on evidence that demonstrates why an exception tends to apply.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle: This authority is useful in submissions involving procedural fairness in self-represented hearings, contravention procedure compliance, and limits on editing oral reasons.

Citation Method:

As Positive Support: Where your matter involves a contravention application that was not properly heard, or where the required rule-based sequence was not applied, citing this authority can strengthen the argument that denial of procedural fairness requires orders to be set aside and rehearing ordered.

As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this authority, emphasise the uniqueness of your matter, such as where the contravention procedure was complied with, where departures were explained and fairness preserved, or where alleged edits did not alter substance.

Anonymisation Rule: Use procedural titles such as Appellant and Respondent when referring to party positions in comparable submissions.

---

Conclusion

This case stands as a reminder that in family law, fairness is not a courtesy, it is a legal requirement. When a self-represented parent brings a live contravention application, the Court must deal with it through the required process or adopt a fair explained alternative. When reasons are delivered orally, they become the authentic record and cannot be rewritten in substance later.

Golden Sentence: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.