In Re F (Hague Convention: Claim for Expenses)

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal by a father who sought to recover non-legal costs and expenses totalling $33,000. These expenses were incurred by the father in travelling from the USA to Australia in 2006 to facilitate the return of his child, who had been wrongfully retained in Australia by the mother since 2003. The father had been involved in multiple court hearings concerning the child's return, but ultimately, the Full Court determined that due to the child's objections, ordering his return was inappropriate.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the father was entitled to an order for his expenses against the Central Authority under section 117AA(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This section pertains to the recovery of costs and expenses in Hague Convention matters. The father contended that the Central Authority should bear these costs, despite the mother being the party who wrongfully retained the child.

The Full Court reasoned that section 117AA(3) of the *Family Law Act* does not permit an order for expenses to be made against the Central Authority in these circumstances. The Court found that the Central Authority was not the party responsible for the wrongful retention of the child; rather, it was the mother. Furthermore, the Court held that the Family Court possesses no power, whether express, implied, or inherent, to award damages. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Court noted that the father might still have avenues to seek financial compensation, potentially by making a claim against the mother under section 117AA(3) or by pursuing a claim in tort against the Central Authority in a competent court concerning their initial failure to ensure the child's return.