Taffa & Taffa

[2014] FamCAFC 106

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TAFFA & TAFFA [2014] FamCAFC 106

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – BIAS – where the parties were divorced in Lebanon – where previous proceedings determined that that divorce ought be recognised pursuant to s 104 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – where an appeal by the wife against that determination was unsuccessful – where the wife subsequently sought property orders pursuant to s 79 of the Act – where the property that could be subject to such orders was, if it existed, located in Lebanon – where the trial judge determined that the divorce proceedings in Lebanon had disposed of the parties’ property in that country – where the wife contended that the Lebanese courts did not have the power to make orders in respect of all of the parties’ property – where that contention had founded a number of appeals filed by the wife in Lebanon – where each of those appeals was unsuccessful – where the husband initially sought an order summarily dismissing the wife’s application for property orders – where the trial judge dismissed that application but made an order permanently staying the proceedings on the basis that Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum – where, after the close of submissions, the trial judge sought further written submissions on the application, if any, of res judicata – where the wife alleges both actual and apprehended bias on a number of bases – where the wife alleged that the trial judge, having previously determined the wife’s application for divorce adversely to her, ought not have heard the husband’s application for summary dismissal – where the wife further contended that the trial judge had prejudged the matter and this was evidenced by him having suggested that forum non conveniens and res judicata might be applicable – whether there was any bias (either actual or apprehended) on the part of the trial judge – where the wife’s legal representative first raised the issue of forum and where the trial judge sought submissions, which were forthcoming, from both parties on the applicability of res judicata – no error demonstrated.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the trial judge determined that the wife needed to seek leave pursuant to s 44(3) of the Act to proceed with her application for property orders out of time – where subsequent to the hearing of the appeal, Anderson & McIntosh (2013) FLC 93-568 was delivered – where that judgment made plain that s 44(3) does not apply to divorces obtained overseas – where neither party challenged the trial judge’s application of s 44(3) – where Anderson & McIntosh (2013) FLC 93-568, whilst delivered after the hearing of this appeal, merely confirmed the application of s 44(3) at the time the wife filed her application for final property orders and at the time his Honour determined that s 44(3) applied and that leave ought not be granted – where his Honour’s determination constituted…