This order was affirmed by the Full Court at the Family Court on 6 October 1999 following an appeal by the husband that the sentence was 'excessively severe' and a cross appeal by the wife that the sentence was 'manifestly inadequate'.

The husband's alleged contempt took the form of withdrawing the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home from a bank account, and gambling them away.

Earlier the court had ordered that the former matrimonial home could be sold for a price of $2 million dollars providing the net proceeds of sale were deposited in a bank account in the husband and wife's joint names pending further orders from the court in relation to the couple's assets.

The net proceeds of sale were never deposited to any joint account. Instead the husband deposited the sum in a bank account of a company controlled by the husband. Subsequently he withdrew the proceeds in cash and lost it all in two nights of gambling at the Casino, one in Canberra and the other in Brisbane. He allegedly said to the wife 'it's my money and I couldn't be bothered waiting around for the court to decide. There is nothing to argue about now. There is nothing left in the kitty.'

Section 112AP of the Family Law Act 1975 gives the court authority to punish a person for contempt of the court. The court may make an order for punishment by committal to prison or fine or both or the giving of a good behaviour bond.

In deciding what penalty to impose a court will consider the need to:

• consider the parties' future relationship and the role of counselling;
• ensure compliance with future orders;
• protect a party from violence;
• impose a punishment appropriate to the breach;
• uphold the authority of the court to make effective orders.

The Full Court of the Family Court in this case confirmed the need to uphold the authority of the court and held that in the circumstances a term of imprisonment of three months was appropriate because he husband had showed a deliberate intention to breach a court order.