FAN & GOH - [2016] FCCA 1880

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FAN & GOH

[2016] FCCA 1880

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – contempt.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.112AD, 112AP
Family Law Rules 2004, s.19.02

Cases cited:

Bande & Cade 45 Fam LR 376

Ganem & Ganem (No.2) [2013] FamCA 257

Ibbotson & Wincen 18 Fam LR 164

In the Marriage of English [1986] FLC 91
Mede & Mede [2006] FLC 93

Applicant:

MR FAN

Respondent:

MS GOH

File Number:

SYC 7129 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Henderson

Hearing date:

15 June 2016

Date of Last Submission:

15 June 2016

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

16 June 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Ford

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Juris Cor Legal

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Zhang Shijing Lawyers

ORDERS

THE COURT FINDS:

The wife MS GOH to be guilty of contempt of Order 1 of the Orders made by Judge Walker on 19 August 2014.
The wife MS GOH to be guilty of contempt of Order 11 of the Orders made by Judge Walker on 3 March 2014.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The matter is listed into a call over on 3 March 2017 at 9:30am for the allocation of hearing dates.
By way of sentence, the wife is to deliver to the husband’s solicitors within 28 days, being no later than COB 13 July 2016, a Samsung Notebook also known as a Galaxy Computer and a hardcover book documenting the daily transactions of (business omitted) which documents were referred to in orders in this Court on 19 August 2014.
In the event the husband proposes to sell his current business he is to give the wife’s solicitors 28 days’ notice in writing.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

The Court will not deal with any more contempt or contravention applications in this matter.
The evidence from the wife’s filed contempt applications will form part of the evidence at the final hearing of the matter.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Fan & Goh is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 7129 of 2013

MR FAN

Applicant

And

MS GOH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The matter of Goh & Fan is a contempt application brought by the husband in an application filed 25 November 2014. The three counts of contempt he alleges against the wife are as follows.
Count one, the respondent, Ms Goh, failed to deliver to the husband’s solicitor’s office located at suite 101, level 10, 420 Pitt Street, Sydney, one Samsung Notebook in contempt of order 1 of the orders made by Judge Walker in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 19 August 2014.
Count 2. The respondent to this application for contempt, Ms Goh, failed to deliver to the husband’s solicitor’s office, located at suite 101, level 10, 420 Pitt Street, Sydney, one hardcover notebook document daily transactions for (business omitted) in contempt of order 1 of the orders made by Judge Walker,…

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 FAN & GOH

Details

AGLC: FAN & GOH [2016] FCCA 1880
Case: [2016] FCCA 1880
Decision Date: 16 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of FAN & GOH, Judge Henderson of the Family Court of Australia considered applications alleging contempt of court. The dispute concerned the wife's alleged failure to comply with specific orders made by Judge Walker on 19 August 2014 and 3 March 2014.

The court was required to determine whether the wife, MS GOH, was guilty of contempt of court in relation to the specified orders. The proceedings also involved the consideration of sentencing for any proven contempt and the future conduct of the parties in relation to the husband's business.

Judge Henderson found MS GOH guilty of contempt of Order 1 of the orders made on 19 August 2014 and Order 11 of the orders made on 3 March 2014. As a sentence, the court ordered that the wife deliver a Samsung Notebook (also known as a Galaxy Computer) and a hardcover book documenting daily transactions of a specified business to the husband’s solicitors within 28 days. The court also ordered that if the husband proposed to sell his current business, he was to provide the wife’s solicitors with 28 days’ written notice. The court noted that it would not entertain further contempt or contravention applications in this matter and that evidence from the wife's filed contempt applications would be considered at the final hearing. The matter was listed for a call over on 3 March 2017 for the allocation of hearing dates.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT FINDS:

The wife MS GOH to be guilty of contempt of Order 1 of the Orders made by Judge Walker on 19 August 2014.

The wife MS GOH to be guilty of contempt of Order 11 of the Orders made by Judge Walker on 3 March 2014.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The matter is listed into a call over on 3 March 2017 at 9:30am for the allocation of hearing dates.

By way of sentence, the wife is to deliver to the husband’s solicitors within 28 days, being no later than COB 13 July 2016, a Samsung Notebook also known as a Galaxy Computer and a hardcover book documenting the daily transactions of (business omitted) which documents were referred to in orders in this Court on 19 August 2014.

In the event the husband proposes to sell his current business he is to give the wife’s solicitors 28 days’ notice in writing.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

The Court will not deal with any more contempt or contravention applications in this matter.

The evidence from the wife’s filed contempt applications will form part of the evidence at the final hearing of the matter.

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.