Pierson v Romilly

PIERSON
v
ROMILLY
[2020] HCASL 197
S119/2020

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Strickland, Kent and Watts JJ) dismissing an appeal from orders of Stevenson J permanently staying the applicant's application for property settlement orders under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for having been brought in a clearly inappropriate forum. The applicant contends that the primary judge and the Full Court erred in finding that there was an extant proceeding in France and erred in treating the French proceeding as one involving an application for property settlement.
The question of whether there was an extant French proceeding involving an application for property settlement was a question of foreign law, and thus of fact, which the primary judge and the Full Court resolved on the basis of expert evidence. It raises no question of principle that it would be in the interests of justice for this Court to consider. The applicant requires an extension of time, but it would be futile to grant the extension which is sought.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

G.A.A. Nettle M.M. Gordon

8 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pierson v Romilly involved the applicant seeking special leave to appeal a judgment from the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, which had dismissed an appeal concerning orders permanently staying the applicant's application for property settlement under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975. The stay was due to the application being brought in what was deemed a clearly inappropriate forum. The applicant argued that both the primary judge and the Full Court had erred in their determination that there was an ongoing proceeding in France and in treating the French proceeding as one involving a property settlement application.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the primary judge and the Full Court were correct in their determination that there was an extant French proceeding involving a property settlement application. This determination was based on expert evidence regarding French law, making it a factual question rather than one of legal principle. The court considered whether there was any principle that would warrant the High Court reviewing the case, ultimately concluding that no such principle existed.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged that the question of whether there was an extant French proceeding was one of fact, resolved by the lower courts based on expert evidence. The court found that this issue did not raise any question of principle that would justify the High Court's intervention. Consequently, the court decided that it would be futile to grant the applicant an extension of time to appeal. The High Court ordered that the Registrar should draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal, in accordance with rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for special leave to appeal. The court found no grounds for the High Court to intervene, given that the determination at issue was one of fact resolved by the lower courts based on expert evidence, and no question of principle was raised.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established