Griffiths & Griffiths

Case [2022] FedCFamC1F 219


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Griffiths & Griffiths [2022] FedCFamC1F 219

File number(s): PAC 3392 of 2020
Judgment of: WILSON J
Date of judgment: 6 May 2022
Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – NATIONAL ARBITRATION LIST –sufficiency of arbitral reasons – applicable principles about adequacy of reasons examined in detail.

FAMILY LAW – ARBITRATION – procedural fairness – content of obligation to afford procedural fairness by an arbitrator – applicable principles examined in detail.

FAMILY LAW – ARBITRATION – overruling decision in Braddon & Braddon [2018] FCCA 1845.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 13E, 13J(2)(a)-(b), 13K, 79(1)(c) and 79(2)

Family Law Regulations 1984 r 67P

Cases cited: AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Australian Railways Union v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1930) 44 CLR 319
AYX16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 99
Braddon & Braddon [2018] FCCA 1845
Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571
Cantoni & Cantoni [2022] FedCFamC1A 11
Cantwell v Beitzel (2014) 87 NSWLR 103
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1
Commissioner of Police v Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and Others v Australian Building And Construction Commissioner (2020) 282 FCR 1
Cooper Brooks (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297
Cooper v Wandsworth District Board of Works [1863] 143 ER 414
De Winter v De Winter (1979) 4 Fam LR 583
Delta Properties Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1955) 95 CLR 11
Dick v Piller [1943] KB 497
Durayappah v Fernando [1967] 2 AC 337
FAI Insurance v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
Francis v Todd [2011] WASC 185
Goh v Ren (2020) 61 Fam LR 508
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic (2006) 66 NSWLR 186
Grimshaw v Dunbar [1953] 1 QB 408
Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487
Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378
Hunter Transport Accident Commission [2005] VSCA 1
International Finance Trust Company Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319
J v Lieschke (1987) 162 CLR 447
Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55
K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Minister for Immigration and Boarder Protection v WZARH (2015) 256 CLR 326
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Lands (NSW) v Jeremias (1917) 23 CLR 322
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 113 CLR 475
National Companies & Securities Commission v News Corporation Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296
Pettitt…

Continue reading Griffiths & Griffiths

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Griffiths & Griffiths [2022] FedCFamC1F 219
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1F 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mr Griffiths and Ms Griffiths, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of a review application filed by the respondent. The crux of the dispute lay in the adequacy of the reasons provided by the arbitrator, as well as the procedural fairness of the arbitration process. The applicant, Mr Griffiths, sought to dismiss the wife's application for a review under section 13J of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the arbitral reasons were sufficient and whether the arbitration process was procedurally fair.

The court meticulously examined the principles governing the adequacy of arbitral reasons and procedural fairness in arbitration, referencing relevant case law to substantiate its reasoning. It found that the arbitral reasons were sufficient and that the arbitration process had been procedurally fair. The court also noted that its decision in this matter overruled the earlier decision in Braddon & Braddon [2018] FCCA 1845. Consequently, the ground of review put forward by the respondent was devoid of merit.

The court dismissed the respondent's review application and concluded that the wife's application under section 13J failed. The judge also indicated that separate reasons for the costs would be delivered at a later date. The orders made by the court were that the respondent's review application filed on 10 January 2022 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

PAC 3392 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR GRIFFITHS

Applicant

AND:

MS GRIFFITHS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MAY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent’s review application filed on 10 January 2022 is dismissed.

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.

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

This ground of review was devoid of merit. I dismiss it. CONCLUSION The wife’s application under s 13J fails. In separate reasons to be delivered later I deal with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.