FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CHEN & TAN | [2012] FamCA 225 |
| FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Property Settlement – Where the parties' relationship subsisted entirely in Taiwan – Where substantial real property and business interests of the Husband are in Australia – Where the Husband objects to litigating the property settlement in Australia on the grounds of forum non conveniens – Whether Husband discharges his onus to establish a clear case for a stay of Australian proceedings. |
| Corporations Act 2001(Cth) Civil Code (Taiwan) Code of Civil Procedure (Taiwan) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Court Regulations 1984 (Cth) Family Court Rules 2004 (Cth) Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) |
| British South Africa Co v Companhia de Mozambique [1893] AC 602 Connelly v RTZ Corp Plc [1998] AC 854 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 Gould v Gould; Swire Investments Limited (1993) FLC 92-434 Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571 Kemeny v Kemeny (1998) FLC 92-806 Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] 4 All ER 268 Navarro v Jurado (2010) 44 Fam LR 310 Oceanic Sun Line Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1998) 165 CLR 197 Pagliotti v Hartner (2009) FLC 93-39 Puttick v Tenon Ltd (2008) 238 CLR 265 Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 |
Nygh, P, Conflict of Laws in Australia (2010, 8th ed, Lexis Nexis Butterworths)
| APPLICANT: | Ms Chen |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Tan |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 7088 | of | 2011 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 12 April 2012 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Kent J |
| HEARING DATE: | 30 January 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms McLennan |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Dante Chen Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Kirk SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Dixie Ann Middleton & Associates |
Orders
The Husband’s application for a permanent stay of these proceedings in Australia be dismissed.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree in writing within 21 days of today what costs Order, if any, might be made regarding the costs of and incidental to these proceedings:
(a) Each party file within a further 14 days written submissions in respect of that issue; and
(b) Unless either party otherwise therein contends to the contrary, that issue be determined in chambers without the necessity of further appearance by either party.
In the event that the parties reach agreement in writing on the issue of costs, they be at liberty to file jointly, minutes of consent via e-mail to the Associate to Justice Kent.
The matter otherwise be adjourned to the Registry for further mention.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Chen & Tan has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
FILE NUMBER: BRC 7088 of 2011
| Ms… |
Continue reading Chen & Tan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Chen & Tan [2012] FamCA 225
- Case
- [2012] FamCA 225
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Husband had established grounds for a permanent stay of the proceedings. This required the Court to assess the merits of the Husband's application and determine if it was appropriate to prevent the case from continuing in Australia.
Kent J dismissed the Husband's application for a permanent stay. The reasons for this dismissal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the Court found no sufficient basis to halt the proceedings. The Court then made orders regarding the costs of the proceedings, allowing for written submissions if the parties could not agree, and otherwise adjourning the matter for further mention.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Husband’s application for a permanent stay of these proceedings in Australia be dismissed.
2.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree in writing within 21 days of today what costs Order, if any, might be made regarding the costs of and incidental to these proceedings:
(a) Each party file within a further 14 days written submissions in respect of that issue; and
(b) Unless either party otherwise therein contends to the contrary, that issue be determined in chambers without the necessity of further appearance by either party.
3.
In the event that the parties reach agreement in writing on the issue of costs, they be at liberty to file jointly, minutes of consent via e-mail to the Associate to Justice Kent.
4.
The matter otherwise be adjourned to the Registry for further mention.
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.