Pierson & Romilly

In the case of Pierson & Romilly, the dispute involves a challenge by the wife against the primary judge’s findings regarding property settlement proceedings between her and her French national husband. The wife contests the primary judge’s determination that substantial steps had been taken in French courts to consider and alter the financial circumstances of the parties, in contrast to the Australian proceedings where no substantive steps had occurred. Additionally, the wife argues that there was evidence of costs incurred by the parties in the French litigation, which the primary judge had not acknowledged.

The legal issues before the court include whether the primary judge was correct in finding that the French courts had taken substantial steps towards a property settlement, and whether there was evidence of costs incurred by the parties in the French litigation. The court needed to examine the stage of the French proceedings and the evidence of costs presented by the wife.

The court held that the primary judge's findings were supported by the evidence presented. The court noted that the French proceedings had progressed significantly, and the wife had taken substantial steps in those courts. The wife’s evidence of costs was limited and did not substantiate her claim that the French proceedings had cost her a significant amount. Therefore, the court found that the primary judge’s conclusions were justified and dismissed the wife’s appeal.

The orders of the court were that the Notice of Appeal be dismissed and that the wife pay the husband’s costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $15,000. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.