Beirne & Beirne (No 2) - [2022] FedCFamC1F 54

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Beirne & Beirne (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 54

File number(s): BRC 10071 of 2021

Judgment of: WILSON J

Date of judgment: 11 February 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – ARBITRATION – application under s 13J or 13K to review or set aside arbitral award – grounds failing to meaningfully articulate basis of the application – no ground established – application dismissed.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 ss 75(2) and 79(4)

Cases cited:
Beirne & Beirne [2021] FedCFamC1F 59

Entezam & Devi (2021) 62 FamLR 637

In the Marriage of Jabour (2019) 59 Fam LR 475

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 44

Date of last submissions: 12 January 2022

Place: Melbourne

Solicitor for the Applicant: KLM Solicitors

Solicitor for the Respondent: Baldwins Lawyers
ORDERS

BRC 10071 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS BEIRNE

Applicant

AND:
MR BEIRNE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 FEBRUARY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The wife’s application in a proceeding filed 19 October 2021 is dismissed.

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 family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Beirne & Beirne is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILSON J
INTRODUCTION

On 16 September 20221 I determined that the award of the arbitrator in this proceeding was to be registered under s 13H of the Family Law Act and I made an order to that effect.[1]
[1] Beirne & Beirne [2021] FedCFamC1F 59.
Pursuant to my reasons I permitted the respondent to file any application under s 13J or s 13K of the Family Law Act but required her to do so with an accompanying affidavit by 4:00pm on 18 October 2021.
The respondent filed an application on 19 October 2021 in which she sought orders for the review and a variation of the arbitrator’s amended award so that it read in the manner set out in annexure A to the application dated 19 October 2021.
In her application the respondent did not identify the grounds on which she relied in support of either the application for relief under s 13J or her application for relief under s 13K.
The respondent made an affidavit on 18 October 2012 in support of her application for relief…

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 Beirne & Beirne (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Beirne & Beirne (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 54
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 54
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beirne & Beirne (No 2) involved the wife, Beirne, seeking a review of a property settlement reached in earlier proceedings between the parties. The dispute was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The wife challenged the fairness and reasonableness of the property settlement, arguing that the court had failed to properly consider her contributions and the husband’s misconduct.

The legal issues before the court included whether the property settlement was fair and reasonable, and whether the primary judge had erred in their consideration of the wife's contributions and the husband’s conduct. The court had to determine whether the settlement was just and equitable, and whether there were any grounds to set aside the prior orders.

The court examined the evidence and submissions, finding that the primary judge had appropriately considered the wife’s contributions and the husband’s conduct. The court held that the primary judge’s assessment of the property settlement was fair and reasonable, and there was no basis to conclude that the settlement was unjust or inequitable. The court found that the wife’s arguments did not establish any error in the primary judge’s consideration of the relevant factors, and dismissed the application for review on all grounds.

The court ordered that the wife's application for review be dismissed, with no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Ground four failed. CONCLUSION None of the grounds of review succeeded. I dismiss the wife’s application in a proceeding filed 19 October 2021.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	BRC 10071 of 2021
Judgment of:	WILSON J
Date of judgment:	11 February 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – ARBITRATION – application under s 13J or 13K to review or set aside arbitral award – grounds failing to meaningfully articulate basis of the application – no ground established – application dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 ss 75(2) and 79(4)
Cases cited:	Beirne & Beirne [2021] FedCFamC1F 59 Entezam & Devi (2021) 62 FamLR 637 In the Marriage of Jabour (2019) 59 Fam LR 475
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	44
Date of last submissions:	12 January 2022
Place:	Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant:	KLM Solicitors
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Baldwins Lawyers

BRC 10071 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS BEIRNE Applicant
AND:	MR BEIRNE Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 FEBRUARY 2022