In Re F (Hague Convention: Child's Objections) (Costs)

The applicant father sought orders against the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, acting as the Central Authority, for the payment of his legal costs in relation to several previous hearings and for expenses incurred in travelling to Australia to collect his son, F, for return to the United States. The applicant also sought leave to pursue these applications out of time.

The court was required to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to order the Central Authority to pay the applicant's legal costs and expenses. Specifically, the court had to consider the provisions of section 117AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the scope of the Family Court's inherent jurisdiction in relation to such claims.

Justice Le Poer Trench found that the applicant had not provided evidence of incurring legal costs, and in fact, had acknowledged being represented by Legal Aid in earlier proceedings. Regarding the claim for expenses, the court determined that section 117AA(3)(b) of the Act, which allows for orders for necessary expenses, is restricted to claims against a party who wrongfully removed or retained a child, and therefore does not apply to the Central Authority. The court further considered the Family Court's inherent jurisdiction, referencing established case law, and concluded that ordering the Central Authority to pay the applicant's expenses, which were essentially framed as a damages claim, would extend beyond the court's function and the powers incidental and necessary to the exercise of its statutory jurisdiction.

Consequently, the applicant's application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court also noted an error in the previous engrossment of orders and directed that the orders be issued in their proper form, clearly indicating they related to proceedings brought under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986.