Keaty & Swann

In the matter of Keaty and Swann, the wife sought a review of the arbitral award under section 13J of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The arbitration, conducted under section 10L, had resulted in a 60/40 division in favour of the wife, adjusted to a 57.5/42.5% division post consideration of section 75(2) factors. The wife, dissatisfied with the outcome, filed a review application on 24 October 2022, later supplemented on 9 January 2023, but without articulating any questions of law or grounds of review. Despite being a litigant in person, the wife was given opportunities to amend her application but did not comply with the court's directions. The court found that the wife's complaints, which ranged from procedural fairness to the correctness of the arbitrator's assessment of contributions, did not meet the threshold for judicial review. The arbitrator had considered a wide array of contributions and statutory factors, and the court held that the award was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust. The wife's application for review was dismissed.

Wilson J began by noting the procedural history of the case, including the arbitral award's registration and the wife's subsequent review application. The wife, unrepresented, had repeatedly failed to comply with court directions regarding the supplementation of her review application. Despite the absence of any questions of law or grounds of review, the court examined the wife's contentions. The wife challenged various aspects of the arbitral award, including the assessment of contributions, the adjustment under section 75(2), and the consideration of domestic violence. The court found that the arbitrator had correctly applied the relevant statutory considerations and had not erred in making the adjustment under section 75(2) or in considering the wife's role as the primary carer and breadwinner. The wife's complaints about the one-off payment, the consideration of domestic violence, and other aspects of the award were found to be without merit. The court concluded that the arbitral award was a just and equitable division of the parties' assets, and the wife's application for review was dismissed. The wife's application for costs was left to be determined on the papers.