JAFARI and RASHIMI AMID - [2024] FCWA 266

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: JAFARI and RASHIMI AMID [2024] FCWA 266
CORAM: O'BRIEN J
HEARD: [IN] NOVEMBER 2024
DELIVERED : Ex tempore
FILE NO/S: 10432 of 2022
BETWEEN: MS JAFARI
Applicant
AND
MR RASHIMI AMID
Respondent

Catchwords:

PROPERTY & ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS - Where the parties obtained consent orders for alteration of property interests - Where the documents filed in these proceedings did not refer to a "mahr" or "marriage portion" payable to the mother under Islamic law pursuant to a temporary marriage contract - Where the mother has commenced proceedings in Country A to enforce payment of the mahr - Where the mother has applied to vary or set aside the consent orders so as to effectively recover the mahr under orders proposed to be made in this court - Where the father seeks summary dismissal and a permanent anti-suit injunction - Where there is no admissable evidence in relation to relevant Islamic law - Where the competing applications cannot be determined on the papers in any event

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA)
Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Dr Ingleby

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Self Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Beacon Family Law

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Mohamed v Mohamed and Anor [2012] NSWSC 852

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES' NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jafari and Rashimi Amid has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 243(8)(g) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

This copy of the Court's Reason for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 312(b) Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)), or to record a variation to the orders pursuant to r 311 Family Court Rules 2021 (WA).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

1[Ms Jafari] ("the mother") commenced proceedings in this Court [in] 2022, seeking parenting orders in relation to [Roshan] born [in] 2021, the only child of her relationship [Mr Rashimi Amid] ("the father"). In the course of those proceedings, financial issues were raised and the parties each sought orders for alteration of property interests.[1]

The initial financial proceedings

[1] By the father’s amended response filed on 19 June 2023, and the mother’s reply filed on 31 July 2023.

2The parties attended a conciliation conference [in] September 2023, and reached agreement in relation to the financial case. Orders were made by consent by a Registrar ("the consent orders"). The orders declared the intention of the parties that in accordance with s 205ZJ of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) ("the…

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 JAFARI and RASHIMI AMID

Details

AGLC: JAFARI and RASHIMI AMID [2024] FCWA 266
Case: [2024] FCWA 266
Decision Date: 18 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Jafari and Rashidi Amid were parties to a dispute concerning the alteration of property interests through consent orders. The Amids had obtained consent orders altering their property interests, but these orders did not reference a "mahr" or "marriage portion" payable to the mother under Islamic law pursuant to a temporary marriage contract. Subsequently, the mother commenced proceedings in Country A to enforce payment of the mahr. She then applied to the Federal Court to vary or set aside the existing consent orders to effectively recover the mahr under proposed orders to be made in the court. The father opposed the mother's application and sought summary dismissal of her application as well as a permanent anti-suit injunction.

The court was required to determine whether there was admissible evidence to inform the court's decision on Islamic law, and whether the competing applications could be resolved on the papers. The court held that there was no admissible evidence in relation to relevant Islamic law, and therefore the applications could not be determined on the papers. The court further held that the competing applications could not be determined on the papers in any event.

The court dismissed the mother's application for the variation or setting aside of the consent orders. The court also dismissed the father's application for summary dismissal of the mother's application. However, the court did not dismiss the father's application for a permanent anti-suit injunction. The court found that the mother's proceedings in Country A were vexatious and oppressive, and therefore granted the father a permanent anti-suit injunction.

Orders