Entezam & Devi (No. 3)

In the matter of *Entezam & Devi (No. 3)*, heard by Wilson J, the respondent sought to review and set aside a substantive arbitral award and a costs award made by an arbitrator. The respondent's contentions included that the de facto relationship was governed by New South Wales legislation, not the *Family Law Act*, that the substantive award should not be registered, and that the arbitration was affected by bias or a lack of procedural fairness. The respondent also argued that the applicant should not profit from alleged illegal acts in obtaining Centrelink benefits.

The court was required to determine whether to dismiss the respondent's applications to review and set aside the substantive arbitral award under sections 13J and 13K of the *Family Law Act*. Specifically, the court had to consider the grounds for review under section 13K(2), including allegations of fraud, voidness or unenforceability of the award, impracticability of carrying out the award, or bias and lack of procedural fairness in the arbitration process. The court also had to consider the validity of the arbitrator's costs award.

Wilson J dismissed the respondent's applications to review and set aside the substantive arbitral award, finding no evidence of bias or denial of procedural fairness. The court also found that the substantive award was not obtained by fraud, was not void or unenforceable, and that it remained practicable to carry out. However, the court reviewed the costs award, finding an error in the arbitrator's determination of a lump sum exceeding $64,000 without adequately justifying the amount or the scale of costs.

Consequently, the court varied the costs award, ordering that the costs be assessed by a registrar of the court, with the assessed sum to be less than the original $64,423.56. The registrar was directed to complete the assessment by 29 September 2021, and the assessed costs were to be paid by 29 October 2021.