Fen & Guiying
[2022] FedCFamC1F 123
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Fen & Guiying [2022] FedCFamC1F 123
File number: BRC 14992 of 2018 Judgment of: WILSON J Date of judgment: 9 March 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – ARBITRATION – opposition to registration of arbitral award – elements in Entezam & Devi not addressed – opposition to registration dismissed – arbitral award registered Legislation: Family Law Act (1975) ss 13E and 13H Cases cited: Entezam & Devi (2021) 62 Fam LR 637 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 8 Date of hearing: 11 February 2022 Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Applicant: Appearing in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Appearing in person ORDERS
BRC 14992 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR FEN
Applicant
AND: MS GUIYING
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 MARCH 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent’s opposition to the registration of the arbitral award is refused.
2.Pursuant to s 13H of the Family Law Act the arbitral award is hereby registered.
3.Pursuant to s 13H(2) of the Family Law Act the arbitral award has effect as if it is a decree made by this Honourable Court.
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 Fen & Guiying is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILSON J
On 30 November 2021 the arbitrator appointed pursuant to s 13E of the Family Law Act published his award which the husband now wishes to register. The wife opposes the registration of the award.
On 11 February 2022 I made orders requiring the filing and service of submissions in respect of this application, the latest of which had to be filed and served by 25 February 2022, after which I indicated that this application would be determined on the papers. Neither party filed submissions in accordance with those orders.
Each party is a litigant in person. Each was unrepresented before the arbitrator.
During the hearing on 11 February 2022 I informed the wife that she should consider my decision in Entezam & Devi [1] and that she should address submissions in accordance with the holding in that authority. She failed to do so. Instead, she filed a detailed affidavit made 3 February 2022, supported by a large volume of exhibits, in which she disputed a significant number of findings reached and conclusions drawn by the arbitrator. She also relied on her affidavit made on 16 October 2021, prior to the arbitral award being made.
[1] (2021) 62 Fam LR 637.
Nowhere in any affidavit filed by the wife does she address the issues I recorded in Entezam v Devi as supporting grounds that might justify an order being made refusing to register the arbitral award.
The wife’s objection to the registration of the arbitral award is wholly unsupported. She failed, despite my invitation to her, to engage with the principles in Entezam v Devi.
I dismiss the wife’s opposition to the registration of the arbitral award.
The husband seeks orders under s 13H of the Family Law Act. I make that order.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Wilson. Associate:
Dated: 9 March 2022
0
0
0