RAZAK & LARDNER - [2018] FamCA 941

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAZAK & LARDNER

[2018] FamCA 941

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting – Where the mother makes application for herself to be placed on the Airport Watchlist – Where mother makes application for the child to be placed on the Airport Watchlist and that she and the father be restrained from taking or causing the child to be taken from Australia – Where the father and paternal grandmother are charged with serious trafficking offences relating to their forced removal of the mother and child from Australia unlawfully – Where appropriate to make the orders sought.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 68B

APPLICANT:

Ms Razak

RESPONDENT:

Mr Lardner

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Wearne

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

131

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

16 November 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

22 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Lawrence

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Legal Aid NSW Domestic Violence Unit

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Hamka of King and York Lawyers Pty Ltd

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Wearne of Reid Family Lawyers

Orders Made On 22 October 2018

Pending further order, the father MR LARDNER born … 1990 and his servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the mother (MS RAZAK born … 1989) from the Commonwealth of Australia AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the mother’s name on the Family Law Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the mother’s name on the Watchlist until the Court orders its removal.
Pending further order, each party, MS RAZAK BORN … 1989 and MR LARDNER born … 1990 and their servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction, and irrespective of authenticated consent as contemplated in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the child, X born … 2017 from the Commonwealth of Australia.
AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the name of the said child on the Family Law Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child’s name on the Watchlist until the Court orders its removal.

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 Razak & Lardner 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…

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 RAZAK & LARDNER

Details

AGLC: RAZAK & LARDNER [2018] FamCA 941
Case: [2018] FamCA 941
Decision Date: 16 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Razak & Lardner* concerned a dispute between Razak and Lardner, heard before Foster J in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal disagreement between these two parties.

The central legal issue before Foster J was to determine the rights and obligations of Razak and Lardner in relation to the matter in dispute. The judgment would have clarified the legal standing of each party and the applicable legal principles governing their interaction.

Foster J's reasoning and the legal principles applied are not elaborated upon in the provided text. However, the decision would have been based on an interpretation and application of relevant Australian law to the facts presented by the parties. The final orders or outcome of the case are also not specified in the given information.

Orders