FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ENTEZAM & DEVI | [2021] FamCA 25 |
| FAMILY LAW – NATIONAL ARBITRATION LIST – Regulation 67Q(3) – 15 reasons advanced by respondent for not registering arbitral award – examination of phrase “any reason” – relationship with grounds under s 13K(2) for setting aside an arbitral award – held, award registered – no reason for not registering award made out. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 4AA, 13E, 13H(1), 13J, 13K, 79, 90SM Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth), regs 67B, 67P(4)(b), 67Q, 67O Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r 26B.32 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (as adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 21 June 1985, and as amended on 7 July 2006) |
| AJH Lawyers Pty Ltd v Careri (2011) 34 VR 236 Dougherty v Dougherty (1987) 163 CLR 278 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR 135 Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605 Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 Pavic & Pavic [2018] FCCA 3386 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 Australian Law Reform Commission, Family Law for the Future – An Inquiry into the Family Law System (Report No 135, March 2019) |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Entezam |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Devi |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2844 | of | 2018 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 12 February 2021 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Melbourne |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Wilson J |
| HEARING DATE: | 29 January 2021 |
| DATE OF FINAL SUBMISSION: | 5 February 2021 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr A. Singh |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Opal Legal |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr A. Strik |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Jack Rigg Solicitors |
Orders
Pursuant to reg 67Q(5) of the Family Law Regulations and s 13H of the Family Law Act the arbitral award of…
Continue reading Entezam & Devi
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Entezam & Devi [2021] FamCA 25
- Case
- [2021] FamCA 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before Wilson J was the interpretation of the phrase "any reason" in regulation 67Q(3) and its relationship with the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under section 13K(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The Court was required to determine whether the reasons advanced by the respondent were sufficient to justify refusing the registration of the arbitral award.
Wilson J reasoned that the phrase "any reason" in regulation 67Q(3) should not be interpreted so broadly as to encompass any conceivable objection. Instead, the Court held that the reasons for non-registration must be substantial and relate to the integrity or validity of the award, akin to the grounds for setting aside an award under section 13K(2). As the respondent failed to establish any such substantial reason, the Court found no basis to refuse registration. Consequently, the arbitral award was registered pursuant to regulation 67Q(5) and section 13H of the *Family Law Act*, and it was ordered to have effect as if it were a decree made by the Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Pursuant to reg 67Q(5) of the Family Law Regulations and s 13H of the Family Law Act the arbitral award of Heinrich Moser made on 28 October 2020 be and is hereby registered.
2.
The arbitral award that has by paragraph 1 of these orders been registered has, pursuant to s 13H(2) of the Family Law Act, effect as if it is a decree made by this Honourable Court.
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.