R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Gibbs, Stephen, Mason and Jacobs JJ. R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39

ORDER Order absolute in terms of order nisi. Alexander Ewan Armstrong who, as the respondent in Application No. S. 4811 of 1976 in the Family Court of Australia, was heard in these proceedings in opposition to this application, to pay prosecutrix's costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Aug. 3 Barwick C.J., Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ.

This is an application to make absolute an order nisi for a writ of prohibition directed to the Honourable Mr. Justice Watson, a judge of the Family Court of Australia, prohibiting him from hearing an application for dissolution of marriage and ancillary relief pending in the Family Court of Australia between the prosecutrix, Margaret Rose Armstrong ("the wife"), and her husband, Alexander Ewan Armstrong ("the husband"). The grounds stated in the order nisi are that the learned judge is biased against the wife and that he has prejudged her credit to her disadvantage.

The proceedings were commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by the wife, who sought dissolution of the marriage and, inter alia, a settlement in a lump sum of $182,500. The petition was served on the husband on 25th November 1975. Injunctions, the nature of which is not quite clear, were granted in the Supreme Court on 15th and 30th March 1976. The wife filed three affidavits (sworn respectively on 22nd March 1976, 22nd March 1976 and 26th March 1976) in which she deposed in some detail as to her husband's assets, whose value she stated was of the order of $15,000,000, as to her own assets, expenses, mode of life and needs and as to the relationship between her husband and herself throughout the marriage. In one of the affidavits sworn on 22nd March she claimed to be entitled to $2,000,000 by way of settlement or as a lump sum representing maintenance. In that affidavit she swore that she did not previously claim the amount to which she believed she was entitled because her husband had said to her, before she issued her petition, "If you claim a substantial sum from me I will destroy you in Court and you won't live to enjoy the money."