CAO & HONG - [2018] FamCA 196

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAO & HONG

[2018] FamCA 196

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INTERIM – Application to be restored as a Statutory Supervisor in Taiwanese corporation dismissed – Orders made for financial statements for entities to be produced to assist with engagement process of Single Expert without specific confidentiality order – further directions

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cao & Hong [2015] FamCA 884
Hong & Cao [2018] FamCA 40

APPLICANT:

Ms Cao

RESPONDENT:

Mr Hong

FILE NUMBER:

BRC 5044

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

28 March 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Baumann J

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr P Hackett

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Accuro Legal (Sydney)

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr K Wilson QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Bespoke Family Lawyers Pty Ltd

Orders

That the Respondent forthwith provide the financial statements for the Taiwanese entities as listed herein to P Accountants (“PA”) to assist with the cost estimates and engagement process of PA to value the Taiwanese interests and at the same time provide a copy to the solicitors for the Applicant:
(a)       B Development;
(b)       Company FF;
(c)       B Incorporated;
(d)       B Limited;
(e)       H Incorporated;
(f)       C Incorporated;
(g)       B Development Incorporated;
(h)       C Incorporated;
(i)        B2 Co;
(j)        F Pty Ltd;
(k)       G Pty Ltd; and
(l)        B Enterprises Pty Ltd.
That the Applicant forthwith provide the financial statements for the Taiwanese entities as listed herein to PA to assist with the cost estimates and engagement process of PA to value the Taiwanese interests and at the same time provide a copy to the solicitors for the Respondent:
(a) J Pty Ltd; and
(b) End of Liquidation Report for I Pty Ltd
That by 5 April 2018 the parties shall provide an updated joint letter of instruction (including any instructions that may be given by the Court) to the nominated Single Experts, but if the parties are unable to agree or for any reason the joint instructions cannot be obtained, then each party shall provide a letter of instruction to the Single Experts.
That the Orders dated 31 January 2018 of Senior Registrar Spink be discharged.
That Order 21 of the Orders dated 12 July 2016 of Registrar Stoneham be varied to substitute the amount of $1,500,000 for the amount of $500,000.
That each party have leave to issue up to eight (8) subpoenae for the production of documents without firstly having to seek leave of the Court.
That the parties shall complete disclosure as ordered on 12 November 2015 by 16 April 2018.
That the Applicant’s application to be restored as a Statutory Supervisor be dismissed.
That the wife’s Application in a Case filed 23 December 2016 be otherwise dismissed, with the costs of both parties reserved.
That these proceedings be adjourned for further mention and directions before the Honourable Justice Baumann at 9.30am on 5 September 2018 in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane.

Note: The form of the…

Grounds of appeal

[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 CAO & HONG

Details

AGLC: CAO & HONG [2018] FamCA 196
Case: [2018] FamCA 196
Decision Date: 28 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were the Applicant and the Respondent, with the proceedings heard by Baumann J in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the valuation of Taiwanese entities and related financial disclosure, as well as applications concerning the Applicant's status as a Statutory Supervisor and the wife's Application in a Case.

The court was required to determine various interlocutory matters, including the provision of financial statements for specific Taiwanese entities by each party to a nominated accountant for the purpose of cost estimates and engagement for valuation. Further issues included the form of joint instructions to single experts, the discharge of previous orders, variation of an existing order regarding a monetary amount, and the number of subpoenae each party could issue. The court also considered the Applicant's application to be restored as a Statutory Supervisor and the wife's Application in a Case.

Baumann J ordered the Respondent to provide financial statements for a list of Taiwanese entities to P Accountants and the Applicant's solicitors, and in turn, the Applicant was ordered to provide financial statements for specified Taiwanese entities to P Accountants and the Respondent's solicitors. The parties were directed to provide updated joint instructions to single experts by a specified date, or individual instructions if agreement could not be reached. Previous orders were discharged and one order was varied to substitute $500,000 for $1,500,000. Leave was granted for each party to issue up to eight subpoenae without further leave, and disclosure was to be completed by a specified date. The Applicant's application to be restored as a Statutory Supervisor was dismissed, and the wife's Application in a Case was otherwise dismissed, with costs reserved for both parties. The proceedings were adjourned for further mention and directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Respondent forthwith provide the financial statements for the Taiwanese entities as listed herein to P Accountants (“PA”) to assist with the cost estimates and engagement process of PA to value the Taiwanese interests and at the same time provide a copy to the solicitors for the Applicant:

(a) B Development;

(b) Company FF;

(d) B Limited;

(e) H Incorporated;

(f) C Incorporated;

(g) B Development Incorporated;

(h) C Incorporated;

(i) B2 Co;

(j) F Pty Ltd;

(k) G Pty Ltd; and

(l) B Enterprises Pty Ltd.

That the Applicant forthwith provide the financial statements for the Taiwanese entities as listed herein to PA to assist with the cost estimates and engagement process of PA to value the Taiwanese interests and at the same time provide a copy to the solicitors for the Respondent:

(a) J Pty Ltd; and

(b) End of Liquidation Report for I Pty Ltd

That by 5 April 2018 the parties shall provide an updated joint letter of instruction (including any instructions that may be given by the Court) to the nominated Single Experts, but if the parties are unable to agree or for any reason the joint instructions cannot be obtained, then each party shall provide a letter of instruction to the Single Experts.

That the Orders dated 31 January 2018 of Senior Registrar Spink be discharged.

That Order 21 of the Orders dated 12 July 2016 of Registrar Stoneham be varied to substitute the amount of $1,500,000 for the amount of $500,000.

That each party have leave to issue up to eight (8) subpoenae for the production of documents without firstly having to seek leave of the Court.

That the parties shall complete disclosure as ordered on 12 November 2015 by 16 April 2018.

That the Applicant’s application to be restored as a Statutory Supervisor be dismissed.

That the wife’s Application in a Case filed 23 December 2016 be otherwise dismissed, with the costs of both parties reserved.

10.

That these proceedings be adjourned for further mention and directions before the Honourable Justice Baumann at 9.30am on 5 September 2018 in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.