Piatek v Piatek; Piatek v Piatek - [2010] QSC 412

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Piatek v Piatek; Piatek v Piatek & Anor [2010] QSC 412

PARTIES:

RENATA ANNA PIATEK
(plaintiff)
v
STANISLAW WALDEMAR PIATEK
(defendant)

RENATA ANNA PIATEK
(plaintiff)
v
STANISLAW WALDEMAR PIATEK
(first defendant)
MAGDALENA JOANNA SIUDY

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS3439 of 2005
BS654 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

4 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 – 7 and 10 – 14 May 2010

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Further submissions to be sought.

CATCHWORDS:

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – CHOICE OF LAW – PROPERTY – GENERALLY – where relief is sought concerning real property located in Queensland – where relief is also sought in respect of money held in bank accounts, a car, items of clothing and jewellery – whether foreign law should be applied to the issues in dispute

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the dispute between the parties is being litigated in Queensland, the United States of America and Poland – where a stay of proceedings was previously refused by this court – where the proceedings largely concern title to and the proceeds of sale of property located in Australia – where there has been a nine day hearing of the evidence - where there is evidence suggesting that the Polish courts will not determine questions of title to Australian land – whether the proceedings are vexatious or oppressive

Trusts (Hague Convention) Act 1991 (Cth)

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, applied
CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345, followed
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No 3) [1996] 1 WLR 387, followed
Murakami v Wiryadi [2010] NSWCA 7, followed
Nicholls v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd [2010] NSWCA 222, followed
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shopping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197, cited
OZ-US Film Productions Pty Ltd (in liq) v Heath [2000] NSWSC 967, cited
Piatek v Piatek and Another; Piatek v Piatek [2010] QSC 122, cited
Piatek v Piatek & Siudy [2008] QSC 75, cited
Re In the Marriage of Gilmore (1993) 16 Fam LR 285, followed
Swettenham v Wild [2005] QCA 264, applied
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538, followed

COUNSEL:

In Matter 3439 of 2005:

P G Bickford for the plaintiff
The defendant appeared on his own behalf

In Matter 654 of 2007:

P G Bickford for the plaintiff
The first defendant appeared on his own behalf

The first defendant appeared on behalf of the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

In Matter 3439 of 2005:

P G Bickford for the plaintiff
The defendant appeared on his own behalf

In Matter 654 of 2007:

DLA Phillips Fox for the plaintiff
The first defendant appeared on his own behalf

The first defendant appeared on behalf of the second defendant

[1] Douglas J: Renata Piatek and Stanislaw Piatek were married in Poland on 5 February 1983 and were divorced some…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Piatek v Piatek; Piatek v Piatek and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QSC 412
Decision Date: 4 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Piatek v Piatek, the Family Court of Australia was tasked with resolving issues concerning the distribution of property and assets between the parties. The dispute encompassed real property located in Queensland, as well as various other assets including money held in bank accounts, a car, clothing, and jewellery. The litigation had commenced in the United States and Poland, with the Australian proceedings focusing primarily on the title to and proceeds from the sale of the Queensland property.

The court was required to determine whether the principles of private international law necessitated the application of foreign law to the matters in dispute. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether a stay of proceedings was appropriate given the parallel litigation in other jurisdictions and the suggestion that the Polish courts would not adjudicate on questions of title to Australian land. The court previously declined to stay the proceedings, but the issue was revisited after a nine-day hearing of the evidence.

The Family Court of Australia deliberated on the complexity of the international aspects of the case, weighing the potential for vexatious or oppressive proceedings against the necessity of resolving the matter in Australian courts. The court found that further submissions were necessary to fully address the choice of law and stay issues, indicating that the matter required more comprehensive analysis before definitive orders could be made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Further submissions to be sought.

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.

CITATION:	Piatek v Piatek; Piatek v Piatek & Anor [2010] QSC 412
PARTIES:	RENATA ANNA PIATEK (plaintiff) v STANISLAW WALDEMAR PIATEK (defendant)
RENATA ANNA PIATEK (plaintiff) v STANISLAW WALDEMAR PIATEK (first defendant) MAGDALENA JOANNA SIUDY (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS3439 of 2005 BS654 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	4 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 – 7 and 10 – 14 May 2010
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Further submissions to be sought.
CATCHWORDS:	PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – CHOICE OF LAW – PROPERTY – GENERALLY – where relief is sought concerning real property located in Queensland – where relief is also sought in respect of money held in bank accounts, a car, items of clothing and jewellery – whether foreign law should be applied to the issues in dispute PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the dispute between the parties is being litigated in Queensland, the United States of America and Poland – where a stay of proceedings was previously refused by this court – where the proceedings largely concern title to and the proceeds of sale of property located in Australia – where there has been a nine day hearing of the evidence - where there is evidence suggesting that the Polish courts will not determine questions of title to Australian land – whether the proceedings are vexatious or oppressive Trusts (Hague Convention) Act 1991 (Cth) Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, applied CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345, followed Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No 3) [1996] 1 WLR 387, followed Murakami v Wiryadi [2010] NSWCA 7, followed Nicholls v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd [2010] NSWCA 222, followed Oceanic Sun Line Special Shopping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197, cited OZ-US Film Productions Pty Ltd (in liq) v Heath [2000] NSWSC 967, cited Piatek v Piatek and Another; Piatek v Piatek [2010] QSC 122, cited Piatek v Piatek & Siudy [2008] QSC 75, cited Re In the Marriage of Gilmore (1993) 16 Fam LR 285, followed Swettenham v Wild [2005] QCA 264, applied Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538, followed
COUNSEL:	In Matter 3439 of 2005: P G Bickford for the plaintiff The defendant appeared on his own behalf In Matter 654 of 2007: P G Bickford for the plaintiff The first defendant appeared on his own behalf The first defendant appeared on behalf of the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	In Matter 3439 of 2005: P G Bickford for the plaintiff The defendant appeared on his own behalf In Matter 654 of 2007: DLA Phillips Fox for the plaintiff The first defendant appeared on his own behalf The first defendant appeared on behalf of the second defendant