HANAS & JOLAHA - [2019] FamCA 319

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HANAS & JOLAHA

[2019] FamCA 319

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Application to restrain a party from registering orders made by a USA Court in the Family Court of Australia or any other Court with jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Karim & Khalid [2007] FamCA 1287
Pascarl & Oxley [2013] FamCAFC 47

APPLICANT:

Ms Hanas

RESPONDENT:

Mr Jolaha

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

113

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

28 February 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Henderson J

HEARING DATE:

27 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Quinn

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

John R Quinn & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Wahhab

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

York Law Family Law Specialists

Orders

The father be injuncted and restrained from doing any act or thing to obtain a Certificate of Enforceability of Orders of the F County court of State E made on 11 January 2019, or doing any act or thing to cause those Orders to be registered in the Family Court of Australia or any other Court with jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975.

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 Hanas & Jolaha 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC113/2019

Ms Hanas

Applicant

And

Mr Jolaha

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by a mother seeking I restrain a father, her husband, from doing any further act to cause registration of an Order of the County Court of State E in America made on 11 January 2019 to be registered in Australia. That application was filed by way of an Application in a Case on 22 February 2019, together with an Affidavit in support. The Application in a Case sought additional orders to this which is being dealt with today. The order that I’m dealing with today is order 5.
Mr Quinn acted for the mother and Mr Wahhab for the father. The father was not present, nor had he filed material. There is no criticism of that. This matter came on extremely quickly and I will deal with other issues later. Both the mother and father and child X, who is the subject of this litigation who was born in 2017 is a mere 19 months of age, are citizens of Australia and the child is also a citizen of the United States of America, as she was born in that country. Neither her parents have…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading HANAS & JOLAHA

Details

AGLC: HANAS & JOLAHA [2019] FamCA 319
Case: [2019] FamCA 319
Decision Date: 28 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Hanas & Jolaha*, Henderson J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother seeking to injunct the father from taking steps to enforce certain orders made by the F County Court of State E on 11 January 2019. The core of the dispute concerned the father's intention to obtain a Certificate of Enforceability for these orders and register them in the Family Court of Australia or another court with jurisdiction under the *Family Law Act 1975*.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the father should be restrained from pursuing the enforcement of the F County Court orders. This required the Court to consider the circumstances under which it could intervene to prevent the registration and enforcement of orders made by a state court, particularly in the context of family law proceedings.

Henderson J granted the injunction, restraining the father from taking any action to obtain a Certificate of Enforceability or to register the F County Court orders. The Court's reasoning, though not fully detailed in the provided text, indicates a determination that such an injunction was warranted. The final orders reflect the Court's decision to prevent the father from proceeding with the enforcement of the state court orders within the Family Court's jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

The father be injuncted and restrained from doing any act or thing to obtain a Certificate of Enforceability of Orders of the F County court of State E made on 11 January 2019, or doing any act or thing to cause those Orders to be registered in the Family Court of Australia or any other Court with jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.