Irfan & Amin - [2022] FedCFamC1F 300

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Irfan & Amin [2022] FedCFamC1F 300

File number(s): MLC 900 of 2021

Judgment of: WILSON J

Date of judgment: 28 April 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – travel bans – orders made to remove travel ban

Cases cited:
AH & SS [2010] FamCAFC 13

Marvel & Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348

Eaby v Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Pollard and Nordberg [2019] FamCA 365

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 22

Date of hearing: 28 April 2022

Place: Melbourne

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr A. Jones

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr G. Hanafin
ORDERS

MLC 900 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS IRFAN

Applicant

AND:
MR AMIN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 APRIL 2022

THE COURT ORDERS that:
1.The respondent father must forthwith take all steps and do all things necessary to ensure that the current travel ban which inhibits the children’s return from Country B is lifted.
2.The respondent, his servants and agents must not impose any further travel ban on the children until any further order of this Court.

AND THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS BY CONSENT –
3.There be an injunction to and upon the Respondent that, at no time until further order by a justice or senior judicial registrar of Division 1 of this Court or clear written agreement between himself and the applicant wife, he not contact or attempt to contact the wife Ms Irfan children W, X, Y and Z in any way, inclusive of but not limited to telephone or other oral technological communication
4.The injunction upon the husband provided for above only herein apply to him and any agents for and or on his behalf and remain in force until discharge by a justice or senior judicial registrar of Division 1 of this Court or by consent order between the parties or by clear written agreement between the parties.
5.The wife, through her solicitor shall inform the husband, through his solicitor, strictly within 24 hours of the children having returned to Australia, irrespective of business days.
6.The respondent has 21 days to file further response material to the wife’s application for financial orders.
7.The further hearing of this proceeding is adjourned to a senior judicial registrar of this Court.

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…

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 Irfan & Amin

Details

AGLC: Irfan & Amin [2022] FedCFamC1F 300
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 300
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Irfan & Amin was heard, where Ms Irfan sought orders from Mr Amin regarding their four children, who were unable to return to Australia from Country B due to a travel ban. Ms Irfan sought orders for the travel ban to be lifted and for Mr Amin to take all necessary steps to ensure the children's return. Mr Amin argued that the travel ban had already been lifted by a Country B court and provided a document as evidence. However, the court was not satisfied with the authenticity of the document and the circumstances under which the travel ban was imposed on the children. The court found that the document provided by Mr Amin was insufficient to conclude that the travel ban had been lifted and ordered Mr Amin to take all necessary steps to lift the travel ban and not impose any further travel ban on the children until further order of the court.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the authenticity of the document provided by Mr Amin and the circumstances under which the travel ban was imposed on the children. The court had to decide whether the document provided by Mr Amin was sufficient evidence to conclude that the travel ban had been lifted and whether Mr Amin had taken all necessary steps to lift the travel ban as ordered by the court earlier. The court also had to decide whether Mr Amin could impose any further travel ban on the children until further order of the court.

The court found that the document provided by Mr Amin was highly equivocal and could not be relied upon to conclude that the travel ban had been lifted. The court was also concerned about the circumstances under which the travel ban was imposed on the children, and whether Mr Amin had taken all necessary steps to lift the travel ban as ordered by the court earlier. The court made orders requiring Mr Amin to take all steps and do all things necessary to ensure that the current travel ban which inhibits the children’s return from Country B is lifted. The court also ordered that Mr Amin, his servants and agents must not impose any further travel ban on the children until any further order of the court.

Orders