Chatterjee and Woodby-Chatterjee - [2018] FamCA 474

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHATTERJEE & WOODBY-CHATTERJEE

[2018] FamCA 474

FAMILY LAW – COURTS AND JUDGES – Bias – Application that the Court recuse itself by reason of apprehended judicial bias – Application dismissed.

DH Singh v DH Singh and Others (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 31
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342

APPLICANT:

Mr Chatterjee

RESPONDENT:

Ms Woodby-Chatterjee

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Brian Samuel & Associates

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

3822

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

6 April 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Stevenson J

HEARING DATE:

6 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms M. Bridger

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Bricknell Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms N. Obrart

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

G & D Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms E. Stolier

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Brian Samuel & Associates

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The application of the wife that I recuse myself from these proceedings is refused.
AND THE COURT NOTED that the court will give brief reasons now and the court will elaborate in my Reasons for Judgment.
AND THE COURT LATER NOTED THAT those are my brief reasons. I will elaborate thereon in my written judgment at the conclusion of the proceedings.
AND THE COURT NOTED the oral application for costs made on behalf of the husband.

AND THE COURT DIRECTED THAT:

Any costs application from either side should be made in written form supported by proper evidence including as to quantum; in the form of a Case Application and that any costs application is to await the conclusion of the entire proceedings.

AND THE COURT LATER DIRECTED:

The hearing is adjourned part-heard before me to 10.00 am on Monday, 9 April 2018.

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 Chatterjee & Woodby-Chatterjee 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 to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3822 of 2013

Mr Chatterjee

Applicant

And

Ms Woodby-Chatterjee

Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Brian Samuel & Associates

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application of the wife that I recuse myself from these proceedings is refused. I will give brief reasons now, and I will elaborate in my written reasons for judgment. I refer to a decision of Gleeson J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, DH Singh v DH Singh and Others (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 31. Inter alia his Honour said as follows:
The test for recusal is whether a fair-minded layperson with knowledge 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.

Continue reading Chatterjee and Woodby-Chatterjee

Details

AGLC: Chatterjee and Woodby-Chatterjee [2018] FamCA 474
Case: [2018] FamCA 474
Decision Date: 6 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Chatterjee and Woodby-Chatterjee*, the wife applied for Justice Stevenson to recuse himself from the proceedings. The husband also made an oral application for costs.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Justice Stevenson should recuse himself from hearing the case. A secondary issue concerned the appropriate procedure for any future costs applications by either party.

Justice Stevenson refused the wife's application for recusal, stating that he would provide brief reasons immediately and elaborate in his written judgment at the conclusion of the proceedings. Regarding costs, the Court directed that any costs applications from either party must be made in writing, supported by evidence as to quantum, in the form of a Case Application, and that such applications would be considered at the conclusion of the entire proceedings. The hearing was subsequently adjourned part-heard.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The application of the wife that I recuse myself from these proceedings is refused.

AND THE COURT NOTED that the court will give brief reasons now and the court will elaborate in my Reasons for Judgment.

AND THE COURT LATER NOTED THAT those are my brief reasons. I will elaborate thereon in my written judgment at the conclusion of the proceedings.

AND THE COURT NOTED the oral application for costs made on behalf of the husband.

AND THE COURT DIRECTED THAT:

Any costs application from either side should be made in written form supported by proper evidence including as to quantum; in the form of a Case Application and that any costs application is to await the conclusion of the entire proceedings.

AND THE COURT LATER DIRECTED:

The hearing is adjourned part-heard before me to 10.00 am on Monday, 9 April 2018.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.