FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GOH & REN | [2020] FamCA 881 |
| FAMILY LAW – NATIONAL ARBITRATION LIST – proceeding referred to the NAL judge for directions under s 13F of the Family Law Act – need for procedural fairness – arbitrator determining procedural steps without hearing both parties – problematic – need for procedural fairness – content of obligation explained. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 128 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 13E, 13F, 13G, 13K, 44(3) Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) regs 67E, 67I(2) |
| Australian Law Reform Commission, Traditional Rights and Freedoms—Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws (Report No 129, December 2015) The Honourable Justice Alan Robertson, Natural Justice or Procedural Fairness (2016) 23 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 155 S. de Smith & R. Brazier, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Penguin Books, 8th ed, 1999) |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Goh |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Ren |
| FILE NUMBER: | PAC | 2296 | of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 22 October 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Melbourne |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Wilson J |
| DATE OF LAST SUBMISSION: | 20 October 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Not applicable |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr P. Lofitis |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Not applicable |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Not applicable |
Orders
The arbitrator must conduct a further preliminary conference in this arbitration in…
Continue reading Goh v Ren
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Goh v Ren [2020] FamCA 881
- Case
- [2020] FamCA 881
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the arbitrator had failed to afford the applicant a fair hearing, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. This involved an examination of the arbitrator's conduct in managing the arbitration proceedings, specifically concerning the timetable for the filing of documents and the opportunity for parties to be heard on such matters. The Court also considered whether there was any evidence to support the applicant's claim of apprehended bias.
Wilson J found that while the arbitrator had made some procedural decisions, there was insufficient evidence to establish actual bias. However, the Court determined that the arbitrator had not adequately ensured that the applicant had a sufficient opportunity to present its case in relation to the timetable for the filing of documents. Consequently, the Court concluded that the arbitration had not been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The Court ordered that the arbitrator must conduct a further preliminary conference to determine a timetable for the filing of documents, with both parties being heard. The arbitration was to resume forthwith to address these procedural matters and was to be concluded, with the award registered, by 15 February 2021. A further hearing was listed before Wilson J on that date.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The arbitrator must conduct a further preliminary conference in this arbitration in which both parties are heard on a timetable that will be adopted for the filing of documents.
2.
The arbitration is to resume forthwith in order to determine those procedural matters.
3.
The arbitration must be concluded by 15 February 2021 and the arbitral award must be registered on or before that date.
4.
The further hearing of this proceeding is listed before me at 9:30am on 15 February 2021.
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.