HU & QIAN

[2015] FCCA 412

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HU & QIAN [2015] FCCA 412

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW − Whether solicitor should be restrained from continuing to act for party − whether solicitors conduct in applying for registrar’s signature on contract breached solicitor’s duty to court   ̶  whether a fair-minded reasonably informed member of the public would conclude legal practitioner should be prevented from acting.

Legislation:  
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.106A, 75(2)(o)

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.15.28(1)

Kallinicos & Hunt (2005) 65 NSWR 561
Pencious & Pencious (2012) FamCA 74

Applicant: MS HU

Respondent: MR QIAN

File Number: DGC 1533 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Phipps

Hearing date: 13 February 2015

Date of Last Submission: 13 February 2015

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 13 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Nicholson

Solicitors for the Applicant: Anna Chen & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr King

Solicitors for the Respondent: Belleli King

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr Moisides

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Belleli King

ORDERS

1. THAT the application in a case filed 29 October 2014 and amended application in a case filed 15 January 2015 are dismissed.

2. THAT the husband pay the wife’s costs fixed at $3,292.00 and the costs of Belleli King & Associates fixed at $7,625.00.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT DANDENONG

DGC 1533 of 2013

MS HU

Applicant

And

MR QIAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The husband applies for an order that the wife’s solicitors be restrained from acting on her behalf on these proceedings.  The application in the case also applies for discovery orders. 

2. The discovery order can be dealt with shortly.  The amended application in a case applies for orders that the wife produce to the respondent’s solicitor the following documents:

   a)bank statements for the payments received by the applicant wife from the Social Security Centre, (omitted) China, including pensions for the last three years;

   b)records and documents in relation to purchase of shares in (omitted).

3. Both parties have filed extensive affidavits.  The wife, in her affidavit of 14 January 2015 says she has provided the Social Security Centre documents and that in a previous affidavit she has deposed to purchasing shares in the company (omitted) and in an affidavit she gives full details concerning the transfer of shares into and out of her name.  Whether the wife has complied with her obligation for discovery is a matter to be decided at the trial of this proceeding and not by an order for further discovery.

4. The application for disqualification of the solicitors arises out the events surrounding the sale in August 2014 of a warehouse at Property B, registered in the names of both parties.  The warehouse was one of two parcels of real estate owned by the parties, the other being the former matrimonial home at Property O.

5. The property was put to auction…