Insofar as it seeks orders in terms of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 & 14, the Further Application in a Case of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents filed 26 February 2010 is dismissed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Jong & Yeng and Ors is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY
FILE NUMBER: SYC 3007 of 2998
MS JONG
Applicant
And
MR JENG
First Respondent
W HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
K ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Third Respondent
HS JONG
Fourth Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
In the context of property settlement proceedings between wife and husband, the husband seeks orders against strangers to the marriage. Three of those strangers seek that his claim be summarily dismissed or permanently stayed or that he provide security for costs.
The wife did not wish to be heard in relation to these interlocutory proceedings and was excused.
Applications
W Holdings Pty Ltd, L Enterprises Pty Ltd and HS Jong seek orders in accordance with the Further Application in a Case of 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents filed 26 February 2010. The relevant orders sought are as follows:
2.That the response of the husband filed 7 October 2009 insofar as it relates to the Second Respondent be dismissed.
3.That in the alternative, the proceedings insofar as they relate to the Second Respondent…
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 Jong and Yeng and Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jong and Yeng and Ors [2010] FamCA 572
Case
[2010] FamCA 572
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved were the applicants, Jong and Yeng, and the respondents, identified as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents. The dispute concerned a "Further Application in a Case" filed by the respondents on 26 February 2010, seeking various orders. The matter was heard by Judicial Registrar Loughnan.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the specific orders sought in the respondents' Further Application. The application sought relief in terms of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14 of their filed document.
Judicial Registrar Loughnan dismissed the respondents' Further Application in its entirety, specifically refusing to grant the orders sought in the enumerated paragraphs. No detailed reasoning for this dismissal was provided in the excerpt.
The final orders of the court were that the Further Application in a Case of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents filed 26 February 2010, insofar as it sought orders in terms of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 & 14, is dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Insofar as it seeks orders in terms of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 & 14, the Further Application in a Case of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents filed 26 February 2010 is dismissed.