Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Jessica Hymel Hoopes, In re [2020] PGNC 118; N8322 (9 March 2020)

N8322

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS NO. 833 OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN CUSTODY ORDERS ACT CH. 366

IN THE APPLICATION OF JESSICA HYMEL HOOPES
Plaintiff

Waigani: Kariko, J
2020: 9^th March

FAMILY LAW– foreign custody order –registration of - filing in court – procedure – s.3(1), Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Custody Orders Act, Ch.366

Cases cited:

No cases cited

Legislation:

National Court Rules
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Custody Orders Act, Ch. 366
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgements Act, Ch.50

RULING

9^th March, 2020

1. KARIKO, J: The plaintiff has applied to have the certified copy of the Final Order by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, in proceeding Court File No. E173149 – Jessica Hymel Hoopes v Ratu Meli Bainimarama dated 12^th March 2018 (the Custody Order) registered in this country.

2. The procedure for registration of foreign custody orders is set out in s.3 Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Custody Orders Act, Ch.366.

3. Under s.3(1), the Secretaryfor Justice is obliged to vet a foreign custody order lodged for registration in this country, to ensure the prescribed criteria are first met before the order is submitted to the Registrar of the National Court for registration. Amongst other things, the order must be from a “declared country”, is a certified copy, and is accompanied by a certificate from an appropriate authority of that country stating the order is enforceable in that country.

4. Upon referral of the application for registration, the Registrar shall:

• file in the National Court, the certified copy of the order and the certificate; and
• note the fact and date of the registration.

(s.3(2))

5. In the present matter, the Secretary for Justice, by letter, forwarded the Custody Order to the Registrar with advice that he was satisfied it qualified for registration.

6. The Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Custody Orders Act, Ch.366 does not provide for the procedure for filing for registration, unlike the situation with registration of foreign judgements pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements Acts Act, Ch.50. Procedure for such registration is specifically provided for in the National Court Rules, Order 13 Division 9, and proceedings for registration under that Act are commenced by originating summons.

7. The Registrar is not aware of any precedent that has established the procedure for registration of foreign custody orders, to adopt for the Custody Order to be “filed in court”.

8. In the end, by drawing from the procedure for registration under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements Acts Act, Ch.50, the Registrar advised the plaintiff to file for registration by way of an originating summons with a supporting affidavit, and the matter was then referred to be dealt with as a Chambers application.

9. I endorse this approach as appropriate. In my view:

(1) The registration must be formally approved by this Court and therefore needs to be properly brought before the Court; and
(2) Unless the Court deems otherwise:

• (a) The application may be heard in a summary manner in Chambers; and
• (b) it is not necessary for appearance of parties, including the applicant.
  

10. Having read the documents filed in this proceeding, I have decided no appearance is required, and I will determine the matter in Chambers.

11. Satisfied that the application for registration is in order, I accordingly direct the Registrar:

• To register the Final Order by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, in proceedings Court File No. E173149 – Jessica Hymel Hoopes v Ratu Meli Bainimarama dated 12^th March 2018; and
• To note the fact and date of the registration.
  

_______________________________________________________________
Pacific Legal Group: Lawyers for the Plaintiff