Duan & Ren (No 4) - [2025] FedCFamC1F 130

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Duan & Ren (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 130

File number(s): SYC 2533 of 2024

Judgment of: HARPER J

Date of judgment: 12 February 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – EX TEMPORE – INTERIM – Where both parties seek partial property settlement with the primary purpose of paying legal fees – Where the wife seeks partial property settlement in the amount of $400,000 – Where the husband concedes that there should be a partial property settlement to the wife but seeks to limit such payment to $200,000 as this amount is sufficient for the wife to pay legal fees – Where the Court is satisfied that there are potentially issues of factual and legal complexity which would warrant the involvement of senior counsel and likely extend the hearing beyond the time estimated by the husband – Where the husband seeks partial property settlement in the amount of $200,000 – Where the husband has had available to him considerable amounts of money held in offshore jurisdictions and holds most of the assets of significant value – Where orders are made for the husband to pay to the wife the sum of $400,000 – Where the Court declines to make orders for the husband to receive any partial property settlement.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 80(1)(h)

Cases cited:
Banduka & Banduka [2021] FedCFamC1F 191

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 18

Date of hearing: 12 February 2025

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Tabbenor

Solicitor for the Applicant: Alton Legal

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Longton Legal

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: No appearance
ORDERS

SYC 2533 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS DUAN

Applicant

AND:
MR REN

First Respondent

MS MANDEL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within 14 days the parties are to take all necessary steps to pay to the trust account of the Applicant Wife’s (“wife”) solicitor the sum of $400,000 from the J Bank Bond account #...65.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.There are existing injunctions in place which continue undisturbed pending further order of the Court.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
2.All questions of costs of and incidental to the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 5 December 2024 and response thereto are reserved.
3.The Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 5 December 2025 and response thereto are otherwise dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court…

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 Duan & Ren (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Duan & Ren (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 130
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 130
Decision Date: 12 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Duan & Ren (No 4), the applicant, Ms Duan, sought a partial property settlement from her former husband, Mr Ren, for the sum of $400,000. The case was heard in Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary purpose of the property settlement sought by both parties was to fund their respective legal fees. Mr Ren conceded that a partial property settlement should be made to Ms Duan but argued that $200,000 would be sufficient to cover her legal costs. The court noted the potential for factual and legal complexities in the case, which would likely require the involvement of senior counsel and extend the hearing beyond the time estimated by Mr Ren.

The legal issues before the court included whether the amount of $400,000 sought by Ms Duan was appropriate and whether Mr Ren's concession to pay $200,000 was sufficient. The court considered the financial resources available to Mr Ren, including considerable funds held in offshore jurisdictions and ownership of significant assets. The court concluded that $400,000 was an appropriate amount for the partial property settlement to Ms Duan, while declining to order any partial property settlement to Mr Ren.

The court ordered that within 14 days, Mr Ren was to pay $400,000 to Ms Duan's solicitor's trust account. Existing injunctions were to remain in place until further order by the court. All questions of costs associated with the amended application filed on 5 December 2024 and the response were reserved. The amended application and response were dismissed in all other respects. The form of the order was subject to entry in the court's records and potential review or variation as permitted by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 2533 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS DUAN

Applicant

AND:

MR REN

First Respondent

MS MANDEL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Within 14 days the parties are to take all necessary steps to pay to the trust account of the Applicant Wife’s (“wife”) solicitor the sum of $400,000 from the J Bank Bond account #...65.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. There are existing injunctions in place which continue undisturbed pending further order of the Court.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

2. All questions of costs of and incidental to the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 5 December 2024 and response thereto are reserved.

3. The Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 5 December 2025 and response thereto are otherwise dismissed.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	SYC 2533 of 2024
Judgment of:	HARPER J
Date of judgment:	12 February 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – EX TEMPORE – INTERIM – Where both parties seek partial property settlement with the primary purpose of paying legal fees – Where the wife seeks partial property settlement in the amount of $400,000 – Where the husband concedes that there should be a partial property settlement to the wife but seeks to limit such payment to $200,000 as this amount is sufficient for the wife to pay legal fees – Where the Court is satisfied that there are potentially issues of factual and legal complexity which would warrant the involvement of senior counsel and likely extend the hearing beyond the time estimated by the husband – Where the husband seeks partial property settlement in the amount of $200,000 – Where the husband has had available to him considerable amounts of money held in offshore jurisdictions and holds most of the assets of significant value – Where orders are made for the husband to pay to the wife the sum of $400,000 – Where the Court declines to make orders for the husband to receive any partial property settlement.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 80(1)(h)
Cases cited:	Banduka & Banduka [2021] FedCFamC1F 191 Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	18
Date of hearing:	12 February 2025
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Tabbenor
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Alton Legal
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Longton Legal
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	No appearance

SYC 2533 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS DUAN Applicant
AND:	MR REN First Respondent MS MANDEL Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	HARPER J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 FEBRUARY 2025