LOOMIS & PATTISON

Case [2020] FCCA 345

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LOOMIS & PATTISON [2020] FCCA 345

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Court-referred arbitration - Application to Register Arbitral Award – Objection to registration of Arbitral Award – consideration of the grounds for objecting to the registration of an Arbitral Award – consideration of whether the Arbitral Award or arbitral process is void or voidable – withdrawal of consent to Court-referred arbitration – procedural fairness – where the respondent failed to assist himself – allegations of bias against arbitrator – where there is no rational basis for bias.

FAMILY LAW – Costs – party/party costs – financial circumstances of the parties – conduct of the parties – where the respondent has been wholly unsuccessful.

Legislation:

Family Law Regulations1984 (Cth) rr.67Q, 67B, 67C, 67F, 67G, 67L, 67K, 67I

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr.26B.33, 26B.01, 26.02, 26B.04

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.13E, 13H, 10M, 10L, 13F, 117

Commercial Arbitration Act2010 (NSW), s.36

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), pts.14, 24, 27, ,sch 1

Cases cited:

Cooney & Fitzsimons [2019] FCCA 373

Braddon & Braddon [2018] FCCA 1845

Pavic & Pavic [2018] FCCA 3386

Blanco & Blanco (No.2) [2019] FCCA 2458
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40

Harper & Harper [2016] FCCA 1603
Mallard & Mallard [2011] FamCA 876
Maassen & Maassen [2018] FCCA 3683
Penfold & Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Re JJT & Ors; Ex Parte Victoria Legal Aid [1998] FLC 92-812
Davida & Davida (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 61
Applicant: MS LOOMIS
Respondent: MR PATTISON
File Number: PAC 1065 of 2007
Judgment of: Judge Harman
Hearing date: 22 January 2020
Date of Last Submission: 22 January 2020
Delivered at: Parramatta
Delivered on: 22 January 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Schroder
Solicitors for the Applicant: Rafton Family Lawyers
The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

  1. Dismiss the Objection of Mr Pattison to registration of the Arbitral Award dated 15 November 2019.

  2. The Arbitration Award of Mr Maurice Edwards dated 15 November 2019, is registered as it if were a Decree of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

  3. Dismiss all extant Applications and Responses.

  4. Remove all issues from the list of cases awaiting hearing

  5. Upon the expiration of the Appeal period and in the event that no appeal is lodged that all exhibits then be returned to the party who tendered same and that all material produced on subpoena or pursuant to section 69ZW of the Family Law Act 1975 be returned to the person or organisation who produced same or securely destroyed.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

  1. Mr Pattison shall pay to Ms Loomis, as contribution towards her costs with respect to the determination and dismissal of his Application for Objection to Registration of an Arbitral Award, the sum of $5,909, such costs to be a charge upon his interests in funds to be paid to him by Ms Loomis pursuant to the Arbitral Award now registered with the court and,…

Continue reading LOOMIS & PATTISON

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
LOOMIS & PATTISON [2020] FCCA 345
Case
[2020] FCCA 345
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge Harman considered an objection by Mr Pattison to the registration of an Arbitral Award dated 15 November 2019, made by Mr Maurice Edwards. Ms Loomis sought the registration of this award.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Pattison's objection to the registration of the Arbitral Award should be upheld. The court was required to determine the validity and enforceability of the award in the context of the objection.

Judge Harman dismissed Mr Pattison's objection, finding that the Arbitral Award should be registered as if it were a decree of the Federal Circuit Court. Consequently, all other extant applications and responses were dismissed, and all issues were removed from the court's hearing list. The court ordered that exhibits and subpoenaed material be returned or destroyed after the appeal period expired without an appeal being lodged. Furthermore, Mr Pattison was ordered to pay Ms Loomis $5,909 towards her costs for the determination of the objection, with Ms Loomis authorised to deduct this sum from any payments due to Mr Pattison under the registered Arbitral Award.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Dismiss the Objection of Mr Pattison to registration of the Arbitral Award dated 15 November 2019.

2.

The Arbitration Award of Mr Maurice Edwards dated 15 November 2019, is registered as it if were a Decree of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

3.

Dismiss all extant Applications and Responses.

4.

Remove all issues from the list of cases awaiting hearing

5.

Upon the expiration of the Appeal period and in the event that no appeal is lodged that all exhibits then be returned to the party who tendered same and that all material produced on subpoena or pursuant to section 69ZW of the Family Law Act 1975 be returned to the person or organisation who produced same or securely destroyed.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

6.

Mr Pattison shall pay to Ms Loomis, as contribution towards her costs with respect to the determination and dismissal of his Application for Objection to Registration of an Arbitral Award, the sum of $5,909, such costs to be a charge upon his interests in funds to be paid to him by Ms Loomis pursuant to the Arbitral Award now registered with the court and, to that extent, Ms Loomis is authorised to deduct from any payment to be made or offered by her to Mr Pattison the sum of $5,909 and so as to reduce the total amount payable by her to Mr Pattison by that sum.

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.