Legal Research
Cases
Penhalligon & Penhalligon

Penhalligon & Penhalligon

Case [2022] FedCFamC1F 744 4 October 2022

Type to search within this case.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Penhalligon & Penhalligon [2022] FedCFamC1F 744

File number NCC 1320 of 2020

Judgment of: WILSON J

Date of judgment: 4 October 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW –NATIONAL ARBITRATION LIST – application to review award of arbitrator – s 13J and s 13K invoked – defective disclosure found by arbitrator – wife asserting husband fraudulent before arbitrator – no question of law properly framed for s 13J review – asserted fraud for s 13K not made out – review application failed.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 13J, s 13K and s 75(2)

Cases cited:
Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade [1983] 2 AC 394

Al-Medinni v Mars UK Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1041

Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Comissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1

Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1949) 78 CLR 353

Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650

Bellenden v Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All ER 345

Black v Kellner (1992) 15 Fam LR 343

Browne v Dunne (1893) 6 R 67

Chang v Su (2002) 29 Fam LR 406

De Winter v De Winter (1979) 4 Fam LR 583

Derry v Peek [1889] AC 337

Entezam & Devi (2021) 62 Fam LR 637

Flight v Robinson (1844) 50 ER 9

Goodridge & Beadle (2017) 57 Fam LR 425

Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513

Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 233 FCR 315

HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd v Kostas [2009] NSWCA 292

In the Marriage of Briese (1985) 10 Fam LR 642

In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) 18 Fam LR 693

In the Marriage of Giunti (1986) 11 Fam LR 160

In The Marriage of Kannis (2002) 30 Fam LR 83

In the Marriage of Marinko (1983) 8 Fam LR 849

In the Marriage of Mezzacappa (1987) 11 Fam LR 957

In the Marriage of Morrison (1994) 18 Fam LR 519

In the Marriage of Stein (1986) 11 Fam LR 353

In the Marriage of Suiker (1993) 17 Fam LR 236

In the Marriage of Weir (1992) 16 Fam LR 154

Kostas vHIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 39

Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563

Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513

Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605

Monte & Monte [1986] FamCA 1

Norbis v Norbis (1979) 144 CLR 513

Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd and others v Mastercard Inc and others (European Commission intervening) [2020] 4 All ER 807

Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73

Waterman & Waterman [2017] FamCAFC 23

Journal Articles Justice Duncan Kerr, What Is A Question of Law Following Haritos v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FedJSchol 18

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 48

Date of hearing: 31 August 2022

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C. Othen

Solicitor for the Applicant: Byrnes Lawyers

Counsel for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Penhalligon & Penhalligon

Details

AGLC: Penhalligon & Penhalligon [2022] FedCFamC1F 744
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 744
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Penhalligon & Penhalligon, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dealt with an application to review an arbitral award. The applicant sought to set aside an award made by an arbitrator and registered by the court. The nature of the dispute centred on the timeliness of the application and the applicability of specific rules regarding appeals and reviews within the Family Law jurisdiction. The court was required to determine whether the application for review was within the prescribed time limits and whether the rules applicable to appeals also applied to the review of arbitral awards.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, specifically rule 13.01(b), and its application to the review of an arbitral award. The applicant argued that the review was not subject to time limits, while the respondent contended that the review application was out of time. The court had to examine whether rule 13.01(b) applied to the review of arbitral awards and if the review applicant had complied with the requisite time frames.

The court concluded that rule 13.01(b) did not apply to the review of arbitral awards under section 13J. It found that the review applicant had not demonstrated that the application was out of time. The court emphasised that rule 13.01(b) expressly excluded appeals from applications to review decisions of arbitrators, which was distinct from appeals from other judicial decisions. Consequently, the applicant's failure to establish that the application was untimely led to the dismissal of her application to set aside the arbitral award.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the arbitral award dated 5 April 2022, which was registered on 21 April 2022. The applicant's attempt to challenge the timeliness of her review application was unsuccessful, and no grounds were found to overturn the arbitrator's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

A decree may be appealed (not reviewed) in accordance with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 and a time limit applies to the commencement of any such appeal.[36] However, rule 13.01(b) does not include a review from a decision of an arbitrator under s 13J. Rule is 13.01(b) expressly provides that the rule does not apply to an appeal from an application to a judge for the review of a decision of a judicial registrar under chapter 14. Rule 13.01 does not apply to an order under s 13H registering the award. In my view, the respondent failed to show that the review applicant was out of time. [36] Rule 13.01(b). Conclusion The review applicant failed. I dismiss her application to set aside the award of the arbitrator dated 5 April 2022 registered on 21 April 2022.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Penhalligon & Penhalligon [2022] FedCFamC1F 744

Most Recent Citation

Vida & Vida [2022] FedCFamC1F 968

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Vida & Vida
[2022] FedCFamC1F 968 Para 7

…& Bakalov [2021] FedFamC1F 161, Beirne & Beirne (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 54, Paviello & Paviello [2022] FedCFamC1F 592 and Penhalligon & Penhalligon [2022] FedCFamC1F 744. SECTION 13J…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 21 of 21 shown

Paviello & Paviello
[2022] FedCFamC1F 592 Para 6

…arbitrator was more generous to the wife in financial terms. [13] (1992) 15 Fam LR 343. [14] (1992) 16 Fam LR 154 [15] (2002) 30 Fam LR 83. [16] [2022] FedCFamC1F 592…
Darby & Fullarton
[2022] FedCFamC1F 59 Para 6

…previous decisions[1] I have observed that the operation of s 13J is wholly different to s 13K. Section 13J is as follows – [1] Paviello & Paviello [2022] FedCFamC1F 59, Bakalov & Bakalov [2021] FedCFamC1F 161 and Entezam & Devi (2021) 62 Fam LR 637. (1) A party to a registered award made in section 13E arbitration or…
Bakalov & Bakalov
[2021] FedCFamC1F 161 Para 6

…at the operation of s 13J is wholly different to s 13K. Section 13J is as follows – [1] Paviello & Paviello [2022] FedCFamC1F 59, Bakalov & Bakalov [2021] FedCFamC1F 161 and Entezam & Devi (2021) 62 Fam LR 637. (1) A party to a registered award made in section 13E arbitration or relevant property or financial arbitratio…
Waterman & Waterman
[2017] FamCAFC 23 Para 9

…light v Robinson (1844) 50 ER 9. (c)the duty is owed to the court as well as to the parties to the proceeding;[19] [19] Waterman v Waterman [2017] FamCAFC 23. (d)full and frank disclosure of all material facts is a fundamental requirement in financial matters;[20] [20] Black v Kellner (1992) 15 Fam LR 343, In the Ma…
Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2)
[2015] FCAFC 107 Para 20

…8] Writing extra-judicially, former Federal Circuit Court of Australia Justice Duncan Kerr examined what is a question of law.[9] [6] Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 233 FCR 315, 341-342 (Allsop CJ, Kenny, Besanko, Robertson and Mortimer JJ). [7] [2009] NSWCA 292. [8] (2010) 241 CLR 390. [9] Justice Duncan Kerr, What Is A Questio…
Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation
[2015] FCAFC 92 Para 20

…Federal Circuit Court of Australia Justice Duncan Kerr examined what is a question of law.[9] [6] Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 233 FCR 315, 341-342 (Allsop CJ, Kenny, Besanko, Robertson and Mortimer JJ). [7] [2009] NSWCA 292. [8] (2010) 241 CLR 390. [9] Justice Duncan Kerr, What Is A Question of Law Fol…
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd
[2010] HCA 32

…3 In the Marriage of Suiker (1993) 17 Fam LR 236 In the Marriage of Weir (1992) 16 Fam LR 154 Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 39 Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563 Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513 Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605 Monte & Monte [1986] FamCA 1 Norbis v Nor…
HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd v Kostas
[2009] NSWCA 292 Para 20

…aw.[9] [6] Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 233 FCR 315, 341-342 (Allsop CJ, Kenny, Besanko, Robertson and Mortimer JJ). [7] [2009] NSWCA 292. [8] (2010) 241 CLR 390. [9] Justice Duncan Kerr, What Is A Question of Law Following Haritos v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FedJSchol 18.…
Barker v Barker
[2007] FamCA 13 Para 9

…e of Mezzacappa (1987) 11 Fam LR 957, In the Marriage of Giunti (1986) 11 Fam LR 160 , In the Marriage of Morrison (1994) 18 Fam LR 519 and Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650.…
Chang v Su
[2002] HCATrans 446 Para 9

…Marriage of Stein (1986) 11 Fam LR 353. [30] In the Marriage of Weir (1992) 16 Fam LR 154 and Monte & Monte [1986] FamCA 1. [31] Ibid. [32] Chang v Su (2002) 29 Fam LR 406, In the Marriage of Weir (1992) 16 Fam LR 154 and In the Marriage of Kannis (2002) 30 Fam LR 83. [33] In the Marriage of Stein (1986) 11 Fam LR 3…
Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd
[1995] HCA 68 Para 14

…rred to the husband’s activities as being “deliberate non-disclosure”. [4] Derry v Peek [1889] AC 337 and Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563.…
Norbis v Norbis
[1986] HCA 17 Para 10

…appellate interference”.[35] [34] (1995) 18 Fam LR 693. [35] De Winter v De Winter (1979) 4 Fam LR 583, Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, Norbis v Norbis (1979) 144 CLR 513, Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513, Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 and the English Court of Appeal decision in Bellenden v Satterthwaite [1948]…
Monte & Monte
[1986] FamCA 1 Para 9

…[2017] FamCAFC 23, In the Marriage of Morrison (1994) 18 Fam LR 519 and In the Marriage of Suiker (1993) 17 Fam LR 236. [27] Monte & Monte [1986] FamCA 1. [28] In the Marriage of Giunti (1986) 11 Fam LR 160, Black v Kellner (1992) 15 Fam LR 343 and Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665. [29] In the Marriage of St…
Mallet v Mallet
[1984] HCA 21 Para 10

…ea of immunity from appellate interference”.[35] [34] (1995) 18 Fam LR 693. [35] De Winter v De Winter (1979) 4 Fam LR 583, Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, Norbis v Norbis (1979) 144 CLR 513, Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513, Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 and the English Court of Appeal decision in Bellende…
Gronow v Gronow
[1979] HCA 63 Para 10

…erence”.[35] [34] (1995) 18 Fam LR 693. [35] De Winter v De Winter (1979) 4 Fam LR 583, Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, Norbis v Norbis (1979) 144 CLR 513, Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513, Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 and the English Court of Appeal decision in Bellenden v Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All ER 34…
Lovell v Lovell
[1950] HCA 52 Para 10

…93. [35] De Winter v De Winter (1979) 4 Fam LR 583, Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, Norbis v Norbis (1979) 144 CLR 513, Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513, Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 and the English Court of Appeal decision in Bellenden v Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All ER 345.…
Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
[1949] HCA 26 Para 10

…n point it would not be appropriate for me to make any definitive observations on point and so I do not. [2] (1931) 46 CLR 73, 85, 107. [3] (1949) 78 CLR 353, 760. The case as put by the review applicant…
Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co Pty Ltd and Meakes v Dignan
[1931] HCA 34 Para 10

…In the absence of submissions on point it would not be appropriate for me to make any definitive observations on point and so I do not. [2] (1931) 46 CLR 73, 85, 107. [3] (1949) 78 CLR 353, 760. The case as put by the review applicant…
[1983] 2 AC 394
[1983] 2 AC 394 Para 30

…nt to prove her propositions on the balance of probabilities. In my view, she failed in that regard. [12] Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade [1983] 2 AC 394, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd and others v Mastercard Inc and others (European Commission intervening) [2020] 4 All ER 807 and Al-Medinni v Mars UK Ltd…
Flight v Robinson
(1844) 50 ER 9 Para 9

…this case, imposed a duty of disclosure; (b)that duty can be traced back to 19 th century equitable principles;[18] [18] Flight v Robinson (1844) 50 ER 9. (c)the duty is owed to the court as well as to the parties to the proceeding;[19] [19] Waterman v Waterman [2017] FamCAFC 23. (d)full and frank disclosure of…
[1889] AC 337
[1889] AC 337 Para 14

…e of the husband’s business. The review applicant referred to the husband’s activities as being “deliberate non-disclosure”. [4] Derry v Peek [1889] AC 337 and Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
13J 2 mentions

File number	NCC 1320 of 2020
Judgment of:	WILSON J
Date of judgment:	4 October 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW –NATIONAL ARBITRATION LIST – application to review award of arbitrator – s 13J and s 13K invoked – defective disclosure found by arbitrator – wife asserting husband fraudulent before arbitrator – no question of law properly framed for s 13J review – asserted fraud for s 13K not made out – review application failed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 13J, s 13K and s 75(2)
Cases cited:	Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade [1983] 2 AC 394 Al-Medinni v Mars UK Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1041 Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Comissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1949) 78 CLR 353 Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650 Bellenden v Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All ER 345 Black v Kellner (1992) 15 Fam LR 343 Browne v Dunne (1893) 6 R 67 Chang v Su (2002) 29 Fam LR 406 De Winter v De Winter (1979) 4 Fam LR 583 Derry v Peek [1889] AC 337 Entezam & Devi (2021) 62 Fam LR 637 Flight v Robinson (1844) 50 ER 9 Goodridge & Beadle (2017) 57 Fam LR 425 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 233 FCR 315 HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd v Kostas [2009] NSWCA 292 In the Marriage of Briese (1985) 10 Fam LR 642 In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) 18 Fam LR 693 In the Marriage of Giunti (1986) 11 Fam LR 160 In The Marriage of Kannis (2002) 30 Fam LR 83 In the Marriage of Marinko (1983) 8 Fam LR 849 In the Marriage of Mezzacappa (1987) 11 Fam LR 957 In the Marriage of Morrison (1994) 18 Fam LR 519 In the Marriage of Stein (1986) 11 Fam LR 353 In the Marriage of Suiker (1993) 17 Fam LR 236 In the Marriage of Weir (1992) 16 Fam LR 154 Kostas vHIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 39 Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563 Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513 Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605 Monte & Monte [1986] FamCA 1 Norbis v Norbis (1979) 144 CLR 513 Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd and others v Mastercard Inc and others (European Commission intervening) [2020] 4 All ER 807 Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73 Waterman & Waterman [2017] FamCAFC 23
Journal Articles	Justice Duncan Kerr, What Is A Question of Law Following Haritos v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FedJSchol 18
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	48
Date of hearing:	31 August 2022
Place:	Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr C. Othen
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Byrnes Lawyers
Counsel for…