SADLER and SADLER - [2016] FCWA 3

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: SADLER and SADLER [2016] FCWA 3

CORAM: DUNCANSON J

HEARD: 15 DECEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 15 JANUARY 2016

FILE NO/S: PTW 4986 of 2015

BETWEEN: MRS SADLER
Applicant
AND
MR SADLER
Respondent

Catchwords:

PROPERTY - application for stay of proceedings in this Court - determination this Court is not a clearly inappropriate forum - anti-suit injunction granted in respect of proceedings in Scotland

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (WA), s 79, s 114
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r 5.01

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms M Wadsworth
Respondent: Ms K Kerr

Solicitors:

Applicant: Bannerman Solicitors
Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ashforth & Ashforth [2010] FamCA 37
British South Africa Co v Companhia de Mocambique [1893] AC 602
CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Limited (1997) 189 CLR 345
Henry v Henry (1996) FLC 92-685
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197
Skinner & Alfonso-Skinner [2010] FamCA 329
Teo and Guan (2015) FLC ¶93-653
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills (1990) 171 CLR 538

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

THE APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION

1The applications for determination are as follows:
•The wife’s application for an order that the husband be restrained from taking further steps in the case in the Court of Session in Edinburgh other than adjourning or discontinuing those proceedings
•The husband’s application for an order that there be a stay of the proceedings initiated by the wife in this Court.

THE PROCEEDINGS

2On 27 August 2015 the wife filed an application for divorce in the Family Court of Western Australia (“this Court”).
3On 31 August 2015 the husband filed a summons for divorce and financial provision in the Court of Session, Edinburgh (“the Scottish court”). The husband seeks a divorce and the transfer of two jointly registered properties in Scotland to his sole name, failing which a sale of those properties.
4On 30 September 2015 the wife filed an initiating application in this Court seeking orders in relation to financial matters which she will specify on a final basis upon full and frank disclosure by the husband. By way of interim orders, the wife seeks the anti-suit injunction referred to above, periodic spousal maintenance, disclosure and the transfer of a motor vehicle by the husband to her.
5 On 29 October 2015 the wife filed defences to the husband’s summons in the Scottish court, seeking that the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. She opposes the divorce and separately seeks financial and parenting orders.
6On 13 November 2015 the husband filed a response to the initiating application. By way of interim and final orders he seeks a stay of the proceeding initiated by the wife in this Court.
7On 8 December 2015 the husband filed a response to the wife’s application for divorce. In his response he objected…

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 SADLER and SADLER

Details

AGLC: Sadler and Sadler [2016] FCWA 3
Case: [2016] FCWA 3
Decision Date: 15 JANUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sadler and Sadler, the applicants sought a stay of proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the jurisdiction of the court in relation to property matters and the enforcement of an anti-suit injunction originating from a Scottish court. The court was required to determine whether it was an appropriate forum to hear the case and whether it should grant a stay of proceedings in light of the injunction. The primary issue was whether the Family Court of Australia should exercise its jurisdiction over the property matters in question or defer to the Scottish court's jurisdiction, given the existence of the anti-suit injunction.

The court considered the principles of comity and the appropriate exercise of jurisdiction in international family law matters. It examined the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia over property disputes and the effect of the anti-suit injunction issued by the Scottish court. The court acknowledged that the Family Court of Australia had jurisdiction over the property matters, but it also recognised the need to respect the jurisdiction of other courts, particularly where an anti-suit injunction was in place. The court concluded that while the Family Court of Australia was not a clearly inappropriate forum, it should defer to the Scottish court due to the injunction. Consequently, the court granted a stay of proceedings in respect of the property matters in Australia, pending the outcome of the proceedings in Scotland.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to balance the jurisdiction of Australian courts with respect for the jurisdiction of foreign courts. By granting the stay, the court aimed to prevent a conflict of proceedings and respect the injunction issued by the Scottish court. This decision underscores the importance of international comity and the role of anti-suit injunctions in coordinating jurisdiction between different legal systems. The court's decision ensures that the proceedings in Australia are aligned with the directives of the Scottish court, thereby maintaining coherence in the legal resolution of the dispute.

Orders