Fowles & Fowles
[2021] FedCFamC1F 67
•20 September 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
Fowles & Fowles [2021] FedCFamC1F 67
File number(s): MLC 8587 of 2015 Judgment of: HOWARD J Date of judgment: 20 September 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – After Hours Service – ex parte application for the respondent husband to be placed on the Airport Watch List – application granted – order made placing respondent husband on Airport Watch List. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 7 Date of last submission/s: 17 September 2021 Date of hearing: 17 September 2021 Place: Brisbane Solicitor for the Applicant: Lander and Rogers ORDERS
MLC 8587 of 2015 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS FOWLES
Applicant
AND: MR FOWLES
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
HOWARD J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 SEPTEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER
1.That the Respondent named MR FOWLES born in 1962 be placed on the Airport Watchlist and is to remain on the Airport Watchlist pending further orders made by the Court.
2.It is requested that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the name MR FOWLES on the Airport Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the respondent’s name on the Watchlist pending further orders made by the Court.
3.It is requested that an application in a proceeding once filed be listed urgently before a Judicial Officer.
IT IS NOTED:
A.That the Applicant Wife’s solicitor will urgently file an Application in a Proceeding and supporting Affidavit in Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
B.His Honour will provide reasons in respect to above order as of Monday 20th of September, 2021.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonyms Fowles & Fowles is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HOWARD J:
This matter came before me as the after-hours Judge late on the evening of Friday, 17 September 2021. Strictly speaking, the matter was dealt with in Chambers and not in Court. That is invariably the case when the Court’s After Hours service is accessed. The Order was made at 11:45pm on 17 September 2021.
The Court was greatly assisted by the staff at the National Enquiry Centre.
It quickly became apparent that what was sought was an ex parte order placing the respondent husband (Mr Fowles) on the Airport Watch List.
The Court, essentially, provided leave to the applicant to proceed ex parte and granted leave to the applicant to read and rely upon an application in a proceeding and two affidavits: one by the applicant wife (Ms Fowles) and another by Jonothan Gregory Rose (the wife’s solicitor). The Court indicated that it would still require the Court documents to be formally sworn (when it is possible to do so) and filed in the relevant Registry. The affidavits as signed (but not witnessed) are admissible on the basis that the documents will be formally sworn, filed and served expeditiously. That is the view I take of the Practice Direction entitled “COVID-19 Special Measures (PD-COVID)”. This Practice Direction was re-issued on 7 September 2021.
From the affidavits relied upon, I was able to discern the following:-
(a)On 16 November 2018, Bennett J issued an injunction restraining the husband from departing the Commonwealth of Australia, without further order of the court;
(b)On 16 July 2021, Senior Registrar Sudholz made a notation on an order – which indicates that the Senior Registrar was under the impression that the husband's name was on the Airport Watch List.
(c)On 3 September 2021, the husband made an application which was heard by Bennett J seeking permission to travel overseas. That application was dismissed (I note the affidavit of the wife at paragraph 10);
(d)A final hearing took place before Bennett J and concluded on 10 September 2021. Her Honour’s decision is reserved – pending the receipt by the Court of written submissions.
The wife maintains the she is still owed money by the husband.
Given that Bennett J, apparently, had dismissed a very recent application brought by the husband to permit him to travel overseas – it seemed to me to be appropriate in the circumstances to make the order placing the husband's name on the Airport Watchlist. It was both “just” and “convenient” to do so. It seem to me that, in practical terms, it would be difficult – if not impossible – to give effect to her Honour’s recent dismissal of the application to travel unless the husband’s name is on the Watchlist. The recent notation made by the Senior Registrar indicates that the Court was under the impression that the husband’s name was on the Watchlist. All documents relied upon on the evening of 17 September 2021 must be formally executed (pandemic permitting) and (in any event) filed and served forthwith. The matter no doubt will be brought before Bennett J at the earliest possible opportunity so that both sides can be heard and her Honour can give the matter further consideration – as necessary. The matter will be next listed as directed by Bennett J.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard. Dated: 20 September 2021
0
0
1