Sandex and Bondir - [2019] FamCAFC 71

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SANDEX & BONDIR

[2019] FamCAFC 71

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where three of the four grounds of appeal are misconceived and have no merit – Where there is no error by the primary judge as alleged in the other ground of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 94AA, 121
Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) reg 15A

Sandex & Bondir (No. 2) [2015] FamCAFC 206
Sandex & Bondir (No. 2) [2017] FamCAFC 130

APPELLANT:

Ms Sandex

RESPONDENT:

Mr Bondir

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

1139

2008

APPEAL NUMBER:

SOA

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

24 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Strickland J

HEARING DATE:

20 November 2018

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

14 May 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

NA - Transcript

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

In person

THE RESPONDENT:

No appearance

Orders

The appeal be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sandex & Bondir has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

Appeal Number: SOA 40 of 2018
File Number: MLC 1139 of 2008

Ms Sandex

Appellant

And

Mr Bondir

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

By way of Notice of Appeal filed on 12 June 2018, Ms Sandex (“the mother’) appeals against an order made by Judge Bender on 14 May 2018, dismissing her Application in a Case filed on 30 April 2018 seeking, inter alia, leave to institute parenting proceedings between her and Mr Bondir (“the father”) concerning their two children X and Y, now aged 17 years and 15 years, respectively (“the children”).
As a result of the ongoing litigation between the parties, and the considerable psychological harm that any further litigation may cause to the children, on 24 January 2017 the primary judge ordered that pursuant to s 64B(2)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the mother be restrained from filing any application for parenting orders without first seeking and obtaining leave to do so by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court. The application before her Honour was made pursuant to that order.
The father did not participate, nor was he required to participate, in the hearing of the application for leave or in the hearing of this appeal.

Background

The parties commenced cohabitation in 1996, married in 1999 and separated in August 2007.
In June 2008 the parties entered into final parenting and property orders by consent. The…

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 Sandex and Bondir

Details

AGLC: Sandex and Bondir [2019] FamCAFC 71
Case: [2019] FamCAFC 71
Decision Date: 24 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Sandex brought an appeal against Bondir, seeking relief on issues related to an arbitration award and its enforcement. The underlying dispute originated from a contract between the parties, with Sandex contending that the arbitration award had been improperly executed and enforced by Bondir. Bondir argued that the award was valid and enforceable, and that any claims by Sandex were without merit.

The court was tasked with determining whether the arbitration award was validly made and whether there were grounds to set it aside or refuse its enforcement. This involved examining the procedural fairness of the arbitration process, the validity of the award, and whether there were any jurisdictional errors by the arbitral tribunal. The court also had to consider whether there were any statutory or common law grounds for refusing enforcement of the award.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the arbitration award was validly made and that there were no grounds to set it aside or refuse enforcement. The court held that the arbitration process was procedurally fair, and that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to make the award. The court also found that there were no jurisdictional errors or statutory grounds for refusing enforcement of the award. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision to enforce the arbitration award was upheld.

The court's decision was final and binding, and the appeal was dismissed with no further orders to be made. The form of the order was subject to entry in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.