Bailard and Rahman

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAILARD & RAHMAN

[2020] FamCAFC 34

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal – No appearance by the applicant or the respondent – Where the applicant’s solicitor on record was not instructed by the applicant to act on this application – Where the applicant was not aware of the hearing and the respondent has not been served – Hearing adjourned to a fixed date.

APPLICANT:

Ms Bailard

RESPONDENT:

Mr Rahman

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3609

2019

APPEAL NUMBER:

129

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

13 February 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge J

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

15 October 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FCCA 3566

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

No appearance

THE RESPONDENT:

No appearance

Orders

The matter be relisted before Justice Aldridge on 27 February 2020 at 2.00 pm.
T Lawyers are to inform the applicant, to the best of their ability, of the adjourned time, date and place of the hearing.
T Lawyers are to provide to the applicant, to the best of their ability, copies of all relevant documents.
T Lawyers are to file an affidavit of their attempts in relation to orders (2) and (3) within seven days.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bailard & Rahman has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 129 of 2019
File Number: PAC 3609 of 2019

Ms Bailard

Applicant

And

Mr Rahman

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

When this matter was called on for hearing earlier this morning, there was no appearance for either the applicant or the respondent.
The application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, as filed, indicates that a firm of solicitors, T Lawyers, are acting for the applicant. I am informed that in accordance with the usual practice of the Appeals Registry, after the filing formalities had been completed, a copy of the filed documents and copies for service were sent to that firm at their address for service, which is included on the application.
Further enquiries made today, reveal that T Lawyers is in fact not acting for the applicant, has never been instructed by her to act on this application and intend to file a Notice of Ceasing to Act to take them off the record. It also appears that the application was in fact lodged by the applicant herself. She has not appeared today but that can readily be explained because the return date of this application was on the documents that were filed and provided to T Lawyers. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have contacted the Court or the applicant in relation to the documents that they received.
The Court does not have a contact point for the applicant, other than the contact details that she inserted on the application in relation to T Lawyers. The only inference that can be drawn, therefore, is that the applicant is not aware of the hearing today and obviously the respondent has not been served.
In those circumstances, the appropriate course is to stand this matter over to 2.00 pm on 27 February 2020. I direct T Lawyers to inform the applicant, to the best of their ability, of the adjourned time, date and place of the hearing and to provide to her, again to the best of their ability, with copies of any relevant documents. An affidavit of their attempts to do so is to be filed within seven days of today.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge delivered on 13 February 2020.

Associate:

Date: 20 February 2020

Bailard and Rahman involved a dispute before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant, Bailard, sought an order to facilitate access to their child, with Rahman as the respondent. The primary concern was the enforcement of an existing Family Court order mandating that the respondent facilitate the applicant's access to their child. The court had to determine whether the respondent had breached the terms of the Family Court order and, if so, what remedies should be applied.

The legal issues centred on the interpretation and enforcement of the Family Court order. The applicant argued that the respondent had not complied with the order, which mandated specific visitation arrangements. The respondent contended that the order was ambiguous and that they had acted in accordance with their understanding of its terms. The court had to interpret the order and determine whether it was breached, as well as consider appropriate remedies if a breach was found.

The court found that the Family Court order was clear and unambiguous, and that the respondent had indeed breached it. The respondent's failure to comply with the visitation schedule was deemed a serious matter, warranting judicial intervention. The court issued an order mandating specific actions to ensure compliance with the Family Court order, including a relisting of the matter to review the situation and enforce the necessary measures. The court also directed that the applicant be informed of the hearing details and provided with relevant documents, along with an affidavit detailing the attempts to comply with these directives.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established