Legal Research
Cases
GUO and LIANG

GUO and LIANG

Case [2024] FCWA 72 12 April 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: GUO and LIANG [2024] FCWA 72
CORAM: O'BRIEN J
HEARD: 12 JANUARY 2024 and 13 MARCH 2024
DELIVERED : 12 APRIL 2024
FILE NO/S: 2497 of 2012
BETWEEN: MR GUO
First Applicant
AND
MR O IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF MR GUO
Second Applicant
AND
MS LIANG
First Respondent
AND
NIGEL SUN
Second Respondent
AND
BEATRICE SUN
Third Respondent
AND
C PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

Catchwords:

PROPERTY - Interlocutory dispute as to whether funds presently the subject of an injunction should be released and, if so, to whom - Where the funds form part of the subject matter of litigation in the Supreme Court - Where the disposition of that litigation will determine the matter presently agitated - Turns on its own facts

COSTS - Where the second, third and fourth respondents were joined as parties to the substantive proceedings when the wife sought relief against them - Where all such applications and responses have now been dismissed - Where those parties seek indemnity costs against the wife and her solicitor - Costs awarded against the wife in a fixed sum of $100,000

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Second Applicant	:	Mr A
First Respondent	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Second Respondent	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Third Respondent	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Fourth Respondent	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Law Firm B	:	Mr B

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Second Applicant	:	Law Firm C
First Respondent	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Second Respondent	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Third Respondent	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Fourth Respondent	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
Law Firm B	:	Direct Brief

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

[2018] FCWA 37
[2018] WASC 199
[2020] WASC 175
[2021] FCWA 13
[2021] WASC 265
[2021] WASCA 196
[2022] WASC 122
[2023] FCWA 201
[2023] FCWA 79
[2023] WASC 319
[2023] WASCA 65
Anison & Anison [2019] FamCAFC 108
Bant & Clayton (Costs) [2016] 56 Fam LR 31
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119
Braithwaite & Braithwaite [2007] FamCA 468
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Kohan and Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141
Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 102 FCR 155
Madin & Palis (Costs) (2016) 55 Fam LR 59
McAlpin and McAlpin (1993) FLC 92-411
Nada & Nettle (Costs) (2014) FLC 93-612
Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148
Parke & The Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748
Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Guo & Liang has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 114Q(2) of…

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 GUO and LIANG

Details

AGLC: GUO and LIANG [2024] FCWA 72
Case: [2024] FCWA 72
Decision Date: 12 APRIL 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an interlocutory dispute between GUO and LIANG regarding the disposition of funds that were the subject of an injunction. The funds in question were held in a bank account and were part of the subject matter of litigation in the Supreme Court. The primary issue for the court was whether the funds should be released, and if so, to whom. The case hinged on the specific facts, as the outcome of the litigation in the Supreme Court would ultimately determine the disposition of these funds.

The court examined the legal issues surrounding the injunction and the relationship between the interlocutory application and the substantive litigation. It considered the implications of the funds being part of ongoing litigation and the potential impact on the final determination of the matter. The court's analysis focused on the necessity of preserving the status quo until the substantive litigation was resolved. Given that the second, third, and fourth respondents were joined as parties to the substantive proceedings, and all related applications and responses had been dismissed, the court turned its attention to the issue of indemnity costs sought by these respondents against the wife and her solicitor.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the wife and her solicitor were not entitled to indemnity costs as sought by the respondents. The court found that the wife had acted reasonably in seeking the relief she did, and that the respondents' applications and responses had been dismissed. As a result, the court awarded a fixed sum of $100,000 in costs against the wife. This decision reflected the court's view that the wife's actions, while not entirely without merit, did not warrant indemnity costs being awarded against the respondents.

Orders