Diem & Vho and Ors

[2016] FamCA 680

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIEM & VHO AND ORS [2016] FamCA 680

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – where application for disjoinder by Fourth Respondent – where discussion of general principles – where application for disjoinder dismissed.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 6.04

B Pty Ltd & Ors & K & Anor [2008] FamCAFC 113
Friar & Friar [2011] FamCAFC 71
Lindon v The Commonwealth (No.2) (1996) 70 ALJR 541

APPLICANT: Mr Diem

1st RESPONDENT: Ms Vho

2nd RESPONDENT: Mr Bo

3rd RESPONDENT: Ms Diem

4th RESPONDENT: Mr Vho

FILE NUMBER: PAC 4433 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 19 August 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: 15 August 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Friedlander

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Selective Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Bateman Battersby Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: Marcus Alyssandra Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT: Marcus Alyssandra Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT:	Mr Dura
SOLICITOR FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT:	Than & Co

SOLICITOR FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT: Than & Co

Orders

1. That the application by the Fourth Respondent for disjoinder is dismissed.

2. That the question of costs of and incidental to the application be reserved.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Diem & Vho has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 4433  of 2012

Mr Diem

Applicant

And

Ms Vho and Mr Bo and Ms Diem and Mr Vho

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The primary proceedings before the Court relate to property settlement proceedings as between the applicant husband and the respondent wife.

2. The second and third respondents are the husband’s sister and his brother in law. They sought and were granted leave to intervene and seek orders as to their asserted equitable interest in the real estate property situated at B Street, Suburb C or in the alternative orders seeking the repayment of $394,170 being funds relating to asserted loans advanced to them to the husband and wife.

3. The fourth respondent is the father of the respondent wife.

4. Proceedings were commenced in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in March 2014 and on 24 October 2014 proceedings were transferred to this Court.

5. Subsequently on 17 May 2016 it was ordered by consent that the wife’s father Mr Vho be joined as fourth respondent in the proceedings. Such order was made as a consequence of the husband’s application in a case filed on 1 February 2016 that…