‘Serious violence’ case sent back to arbitration

A family law judge has insisted a couple resolve their dispute via arbitration, despite serious domestic violence.

A family law judge has insisted a couple resolve their dispute via arbitration,

A family law judge has insisted a couple resolve their dispute via ­arbitration, despite serious domestic violence inflicted by the husband on the wife, because of “extreme” court delays.

Federal Circuit Court judge Joe Harman said a court trial to resolve their dispute could not occur before next year at the earliest.

“At present and as a consequence not only of (the) response to the pandemic but as a consequence of an underlying chronic absence of resourcing, this case could not and would not be heard until 2021 at the earliest, if even then,” he said.

The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court have had a spike in urgent applications since mid-March, as parents and separated couples grapple with issues thrown up by the pandemic, including an increased risk of family violence, border closures and illness.

The courts have set up a new COVID-19 list to hear ­urgent disputes within 72 hours, as revealed by The Weekend Australian.

The head of both courts, Will Alstergren, told The Weekend Australian that the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court were managing to stay on top of their workloads, and were still achieving a clearance rate of 86 per cent.

However, Judge Harman said the delays to reach a final hearing were “extreme”.

The couple appearing before him had initially agreed to resolve their property dispute by private arbitration.

However, the wife became so severely distressed at being in the same building as her estranged husband during their attempt at arbitration that she had to be ­admitted to hospital.

This was because of the “severe instances of violence” he had allegedly inflicted on her in the past.

The parties agreed the matter should instead be returned to court to be decided by a judge.

Judge Harman said while he could “only empathise” with the wife, known as “Ms Palgrove”, the arbitration should proceed.

This was because of the delays they would face, and because the pair had already invested time and money in the arbitration process.

He said the wife should not be required to be in the same room or even the same premises as her former husband.

This could be achieved by video technology, the use of which had been accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, he said.