Taffa & Taffa

The case of Taffa & Taffa involved a dispute between a married couple, who were divorced in Lebanon, concerning the recognition and effect of their Lebanese divorce in Australia and the subsequent application for property orders. The wife had previously unsuccessfully appealed the determination that her Lebanese divorce should be recognised in Australia under section 104 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). After the divorce was recognised, she sought property orders under section 79 of the Act, concerning property that, if it existed, was located in Lebanon. The trial judge dismissed the husband's application for summary dismissal but permanently stayed the proceedings, finding Australia to be an inappropriate forum. The wife alleged bias on the part of the trial judge, claiming he should not have heard the husband's application for summary dismissal as he had previously ruled against her on the divorce recognition issue. The wife also contended that the trial judge had prejudged the matter, as he had suggested forum non conveniens and res judicata might be applicable. Additionally, the wife argued that she needed to seek leave under section 44(3) of the Act to proceed with her application for property orders out of time.

The court considered whether there was any bias on the part of the trial judge and whether the trial judge had correctly applied section 44(3) of the Act in determining the wife’s need to seek leave to proceed with her application for property orders out of time. The court found that the wife's allegations of bias were not substantiated and that the trial judge's application of section 44(3) constituted an error of law, as it was later confirmed by Anderson & McIntosh (2013) FLC 93-568 that section 44(3) does not apply to divorces obtained overseas. This judgment was delivered after the hearing of the appeal but merely confirmed the application of section 44(3) at the relevant times. The appeal was allowed in part, with the order refusing leave set aside.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal in respect of the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 28 November 2012, to allow the appeal in part, to set aside paragraph 2 of the Orders of Le Poer Trench J made on 13 March 2012, and to make no order as to costs.