Applicant:MR CAINE Respondent:MS CAINE

This matter concerned an application by Ms Caine to review an arbitral award concerning property interests made pursuant to the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Mr Caine sought to have certain questions and paragraphs struck from Ms Caine's Second Further Amended Application in a Case, and the court also made orders regarding the preparation of a Court Book, the filing of written submissions and authorities, and the listing of the review application for hearing.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the arbitrator had misapprehended the facts or made an entirely erroneous assessment of the issues, and whether it was open to the arbitrator, as a matter of law, to make certain findings regarding the financial adjustment between the parties, the husband's capacity to maintain a standard of living, and the wife's future earning capacity. Further, the court was asked to consider whether the arbitrator had made a wholly erroneous assessment of the relevant issues and evidence in determining the percentage of contributions and the final apportionment of property, particularly in light of alleged failures to consider or properly apply the provisions of s 79(4)(a) to (c) and s 79(4)(d) to (e) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the effect of the award on the parties' earning capacities and the provisions of s 75(2) of the Act.

The court's reasoning, as evidenced by the orders made, focused on procedural matters and the proper framing of the review application. The decision highlights the importance of clearly articulating questions of law in appeals from arbitral awards, drawing parallels with appeals from administrative tribunals. The court indicated that the substance of the appeal, rather than mere form, would determine whether it was properly brought as a question of law, and that a broad approach to what constitutes a question of law, extending beyond jurisdictional error, would be taken.

The court ordered that specific questions and paragraphs be struck from the application, indicating that they did not properly raise a question of law for review. Directions were given for the preparation of the Court Book, the filing of submissions and authorities by both parties, and the application for review was listed for hearing on 28 May 2020. Publication of the judgment under the pseudonym Caine & Caine was approved.