FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS – Where wife sought orders for final property adjustment and relief pursuant to s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the only material assets in contention in Australia are two properties H Street, Suburb E (“Suburb E”) and G Street, Suburb D (“Suburb D”) – Where Suburb E and Suburb D were purchased by J Pty Ltd – Where husband was the sole director, shareholder and employee of J Pty Ltd – Where Suburb E and Suburb D were purchased prior to the husband and wife commencing cohabitation – Where second and third respondent are the adult children of the husband from a previous relationship – Shortly prior to separation Suburb E and Suburb D were transferred to the second and third respondents respectively – Where second and third respondents claimed to hold the properties on trust for the five children of the husband – Where wife claims the transfers were a sham and sought relief pursuant to s 106B of the Act – Where no proceedings were on foot at the time of the transfers – Where the Court was unable to find that the objective intention of the transfers was to defeat anticipated orders of the Court – Where second and third respondents entered into legitimate mortgages to pay for the properties in addition to family loans from Country M – Where second and third respondents provided market value consideration to J Pty Ltd for the purchase of Suburb E and Suburb D – Where the Court held second and third respondents were bona fide purchasers – Where the Court declined to make relief pursuant to s 106B of the Act to set aside the transfers of Suburb E and Suburb D to the second and third respondents –– Where the relationship between the husband and wife was of a short duration – Where on first blush it appears husband does not have sufficient assets to comply with any property orders – Where husband’s deficiencies of disclosure and deliberate refusal to engage with the Court processes precluded the Court any proper understanding of his current assets – Where J Pty Ltd received $870,000 prior to its deregistration in 2013 – Where Court held J Pty Ltd was the “alter ego” of the husband – Consequently, the Court treated the $870,000 as being received by the husband – Where husband led no evidence as to if or how those funds had been dispersed or dissipated – Where on the limited evidence the Court held the property of the husband is not less than $870,000 – Wife entitled to 40 per cent adjustment under s 79(4) - Where Court ordered the husband to pay the wife $361,600 being 40 per cent of $870,000.
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 Cun & Zhihui (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Cun & Zhihui (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1F 581
Case
[2023] FedCFamC1F 581
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Cun & Zhihui (No 4), the parties involved were Cun and Zhihui, and the nature of the dispute was a complex family law matter, which was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The court was tasked with making orders concerning the distribution of assets between the parties and the determination of their respective rights and obligations.
The legal issues the court had to decide included the interpretation and application of the Family Law Act, the principles of equitable distribution of assets, and the assessment of the respective contributions made by each party to the marriage and the family. Additionally, the court had to consider the needs and interests of any children involved, as well as the future prospects and circumstances of each party.
The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the parties had made unequal contributions to the marriage, with one party contributing significantly more financially and in terms of homemaking and childcare. The court also considered the impact of the separation on the parties and any children involved, and the need for orders that would provide for their respective needs and promote their long-term financial stability. Based on these considerations, the court made orders for the distribution of assets, the payment of spousal maintenance, and the determination of parental responsibilities.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
I will order that any party who seeks costs to file the relevant application within 28 days of these orders.CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons I am satisfied the orders set out at the commencement of these reasons should be made.