FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – JURISDICTION – Anti-suit injunction – Whether the Family Court of Western Australia (“FCWA”) has power to grant an anti-suit injunction – The Family Court of Australia can grant an anti-suit injunction in the exercise of its implied power to control its own process, and arguably pursuant to s 34 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the federal Act”) – It is also arguable that s 114(3) of the federal Act gives power to grant an anti-suit injunction – There is a clear statutory intention that the FCWA should have the same powers as the Family Court of Australia, notwithstanding that the FCWA is not a superior court of record – The FCWA cannot grant equitable relief, but has power to control its own process and can grant such relief as is incidental and necessary to the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by statute – The primary judge had the requisite power – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – INJUNCTIONS – Anti-suit injunction – Where the husband appealed against an anti-suit injunction made by a judge of the FCWA which restrained the husband from taking further steps in proceedings in Singapore – Where prior to the commencement of the Singaporean proceedings, the wife had applied to the FCWA seeking property settlement orders and to set aside a deed under s 106B of the federal Act – The primary judge did not err in finding that the FCWA could determine all aspects of the dispute; that the FCWA was not a clearly inappropriate forum; that the Singaporean proceedings interfered with the FCWA proceedings; and that the Singaporean proceedings were vexatious or oppressive – The primary judge did not fail to take account of relevant considerations, or fail to properly exercise her discretion – Appeal dismissed.
[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 Teo & Guan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Teo & Guan [2015] FamCAFC 94
Case
[2015] FamCAFC 94
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal, brought before the Family Court of Australia, involved a dispute between Teo and Guan, with the husband appealing against an anti-suit injunction made by a judge of the Family Court of Western Australia (FCWA). The injunction restrained the husband from taking further steps in proceedings in Singapore. Prior to the Singaporean proceedings, the wife had applied to the FCWA seeking property settlement orders and to set aside a deed under section 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The legal issues centred on whether the FCWA had the power to grant an anti-suit injunction and if the primary judge had properly exercised her discretion in making the injunction.
The court examined the jurisdiction of the FCWA to grant an anti-suit injunction, considering the implied power to control its own process and provisions in the Family Law Act. It was argued that the FCWA had the power to grant such relief as was incidental and necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction conferred by statute, despite not being a superior court of record. The court found that there was a clear statutory intention that the FCWA should have the same powers as the Family Court of Australia. The court also considered whether the primary judge had correctly determined that the FCWA could determine all aspects of the dispute, that it was not a clearly inappropriate forum, and that the Singaporean proceedings interfered with the FCWA proceedings and were vexatious or oppressive.
The appeal was dismissed by the court. The primary judge was found to have the requisite power to make the anti-suit injunction and had not erred in finding that the FCWA could determine all aspects of the dispute, that it was not a clearly inappropriate forum, that the Singaporean proceedings interfered with the FCWA proceedings, and that the Singaporean proceedings were vexatious or oppressive. The primary judge did not fail to take account of relevant considerations or fail to properly exercise her discretion. The appellant was granted leave to appeal but the appeal against the orders made by Justice Duncanson on 8 April 2014 was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appellant be granted leave to appeal.
2.
The appeal against the orders of the Honourable Justice Duncanson made on 8 April 2014 be dismissed.
3.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.