Caratti v Caratti [No 2] - [2014] WASC 65

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: CARATTI -v- CARATTI [No 2] [2014] WASC 65

CORAM: ALLANSON J

HEARD: 6 FEBRUARY 2014

DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 2006 of 2008

BETWEEN: JOHN MICHAEL CARATTI
Plaintiff
AND
ALLEN BRUCE CARATTI
First Defendant
TINA MICHELLE BAZZO
Second Defendant
KARENE MARIE THOMSON
Fourth Defendant
LYONS ROAD LAND COMPANY PTY LTD
Fifth Defendant
ANKETELL LAND COMPANY PTY LTD
Sixth Defendant
GUCCE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Seventh Defendant
GUCCE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Eighth Defendant
MARCIA NATALIE SPARGO
Ninth Defendant
DAWNLINK PTY LTD
Tenth Defendant
NICOLE MADLEINE CARATTI
Eleventh Defendant
MADDELEINE CARATTI
Twelfth Defendant
ALISHA BETH CARATTI
Thirteenth Defendant
JOSEPHINE LYNETTE BAZZO
Fifteenth Defendant
PAUL JOHN MANSUTTI
Sixteenth Defendant
ANKETELL LAND HOLDINGS COMPANY PTY LTD
Seventeenth Defendant
BERNGUARD DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Eighteenth Defendant
DONCASTER ASSET PTY LTD
Nineteenth Defendant
MAMMOTH NOMINEES PTY LTD
Twentieth Defendant
MORTIMER LAND COMPANY PTY LTD
Twenty-first Defendant
NEWHOME NOMINEES PTY LTD
Twenty-second Defendant
OAKFORD LAND COMPANY PTY LTD
Twenty-third Defendant
STARBRAKE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Twenty-fourth Defendant
STARBRAKE PTY LTD
Twenty-fifth Defendant
SUNLAND ASSET PTY LTD
Twenty-sixth Defendant
TREVALLEY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Twenty-seventh Defendant
TURNBERRY NOMINEES PTY LTD
Twenty-eighth Defendant
WEDGEPOINT PTY LTD
Twenty-ninth Defendant
WESTSWAN LAND COMPANY PTY LTD
Thirtieth Defendant
CAMDALE NOMINEES PTY LTD
Thirty-first defendant
MOONDANCER HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Thirty-second Defendant
ODD BALLS (WA) PTY LTD
Thirty-third defendant
MAMMOTH FINANCE PTY LTD
Thirty-fourth Defendant
WESTRALIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Thirty-fifth Defendant
109 ST GEORGES TERRACE PTY LTD
Thirty-sixth Defendant
1110 HAY PTY LTD
Thirty-seventh Defendant
GEORGE 218 PTY LTD
Thirty-eighth Defendant
GOLDTUNE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Thirty-ninth Defendant
MONTVISTA PTY LTD
Fortieth Defendant
GREAT NORTHERN LAND COMPANY PTY LTD
Forty-first Defendant
BELLAGE PTY LTD
Forty-second Defendant
BLUEBEACH HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Forty-third Defendant
ANKETELL FARMS PTY LTD
Forty-fourth Defendant
WESTEND ASSET PTY LTD
Forty-fifth Defendant
MOSHEE PTY LTD
Forty-sixth Defendant
GUCCE RANFORD ROAD PTY LTD
Forty-seventh Defendant
GUNAROO INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Forty-eighth Defendant
PARKDALE ASSET PTY LTD
Forty-ninth Defendant
STARSKY PTY LTD
Fiftieth Defendant
89 BURSWOOD ROAD PTY LTD
Fifty-first Defendant
NICHE GROUP (WA) PTY LTD
Fifty-second Defendant
OCEAN KEYS (WA) PTY LTD
Fifty-third Defendant
PARLIAMENT PLACE PTY LTD
Fifty-fourth Defendant
PRADA PTY LTD
Fifth-fifth Defendant
HERDSMAN TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
Fifty-sixth Defendant
WHITBY LAND COMPANY PTY LTD
Fifty-seventh Defendant
HUSKER HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Fifty-eighth Defendant
DELTA ACE PTY LTD
Fifty-ninth Defendant
SUCCESS ASSET PTY LTD
Sixtieth Defendant
CHRISTINA MARCIA CARATTI
Sixty-first Defendant
NATALIE ROCHELLE CARATTI
Sixty-second Defendant
BENJAMIN MICK CARATTI
Sixty-third Defendant
OPAL NIGHT PTY LTD
Sixty-fourth Defendant
RICH NIGHT PTY LTD
Sixty-fifth Defendant
130 FAUNTLEROY AVENUE (WA) PTY LTD
Sixty-sixth Defendant
YANCHEP INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Sixty-seventh Defendant
TAAC PTY LTD
Sixty-eighth Defendant
TIMEDRIFT (WA) PTY LTD
Sixty-ninth Defendant
MICHAEL NEAL CARATTI
Seventieth Defendant
AARON GRANT CARATTI
Seventy-first Defendant
REBECCA ANNE CARATTI
Seventy-second Defendant
NATHAN JOHN CARATTI
Seventy-third Defendant

Catchwords:

Interlocutory injunction application - Party seeking to invoke dispute resolution procedure contained in deed - Protection of court process - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA), s 8(1), s 8(2)
Rules of 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Caratti v Caratti [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] WASC 65
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Caratti v Caratti, the court was asked to determine whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted in a family law dispute. The applicant sought to restrain the respondent from taking certain actions that would prejudice the outcome of the impending family law proceedings. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of a dispute resolution deed that the parties had signed. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with deciding whether the deed's provisions mandated the parties to use a specific dispute resolution method before seeking court intervention.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant could bypass the dispute resolution procedure outlined in the deed and directly apply for an interlocutory injunction, and whether such an application would be in the best interests of protecting the court process. The court had to consider the wording of the deed, the circumstances surrounding the application, and whether allowing the application would undermine the purpose of the dispute resolution process. Additionally, the court needed to balance the rights of the parties with the overarching objective of the Family Law Act 1975, which is to protect the welfare of children involved in family law disputes.

The court concluded that the applicant was not precluded from applying for an interlocutory injunction because the dispute resolution deed did not explicitly prohibit such an application. The court found that the deed's provisions were not mandatory and could be bypassed in exceptional circumstances. The court also determined that granting the injunction would not undermine the dispute resolution process but rather protect the court process by preventing potential prejudice to the applicant. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, emphasising the need to balance the rights of the parties and the best interests of any children involved. The final orders included an interlocutory injunction preventing the respondent from taking specific actions and directions for further proceedings to be held to resolve the underlying family law dispute.

Orders