LOOMIS & PATTISON

In the matter of *Loomis & Pattison*, heard before Judge Harman, the dispute concerned the husband's consent to court-referred arbitration. The husband contended that his consent was conditional upon the provision of certain disclosure, and the court was asked to consider the power of a Registrar to sign an arbitration agreement on behalf of a party who refused or neglected to do so, pursuant to section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The proceedings also involved an application for costs.

The court was required to determine whether a Registrar could be appointed to execute an arbitration agreement on behalf of the respondent husband if he failed or refused to sign it, and whether the husband should pay the wife's costs of the appearance. The court also needed to consider the implications of the husband's alleged conditional consent and his potential non-participation in the arbitration process.

Judge Harman reasoned that an order could be made pursuant to s.106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* to permit a Registrar to sign an arbitration agreement on behalf of a defaulting party. The court found that the husband's consent to arbitration was to be given effect, and in the event of his refusal or neglect to sign the necessary documentation within seven days of a written request, a Registrar was authorised to execute the arbitration agreement on his behalf. The court also ordered that the arbitrator proceed with the arbitration, including on an undefended basis should the husband fail to participate or comply with directions.

The court ordered that each party do all acts and sign all necessary documentation to give effect to the terms of the orders made on 19 March 2019. A Registrar was appointed to execute an arbitration agreement on behalf of the respondent husband should he fail or refuse to do so within seven days of a written request, provided the applicant wife could demonstrate such a request was made and remained unanswered. The arbitrator was directed to proceed with the arbitration, and the respondent husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the appearance, fixed at $880, to be a charge upon his interest in the assets and deductible from any payment he might receive as a consequence of the arbitral award.