DICKENS & DICKENS

In *Dickens & Dickens*, heard by Johnston J, the mother sought urgent orders concerning the recovery of the child, C. The father had not been served with the application and affidavit, and therefore had not had an opportunity to present a reply. The court considered the matter to be one requiring urgent action, leading to the orders being made ex parte.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant a recovery order for the child C, pursuant to section 67Q of the *Family Law Act 1975*. This involved determining whether the circumstances warranted making such an order on an urgent and ex parte basis, and whether service of the application should be dispensed with. The court also considered the suspension of a prior order dated 7 June 2013.

Johnston J reasoned that urgent action was required and, in light of the father's non-service and the urgency, made orders ex parte. The court issued a recovery order directed to various law enforcement officers, authorising them to find and recover the child C, stop and search vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and enter and search premises where C might be found, and to deliver C to the mother. The court also dispensed with service of the application for the recovery order and suspended a previous order. The proceedings were adjourned for further consideration.