Jong & Yeng

[2014] FamCAFC 156

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JONG & YENG [2014] FamCAFC 156

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY –Where the primary judge did not make orders finalising the financial relationship between the parties – Where further litigation contemplated between the parties and other entities in another court – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Cross-appeal – Add back of legal costs – Where moneys applied to legal fees had no connection with the marriage - Cross-appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Boulos & Boulos [2003] FamCA 1185

Chorn & Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204

APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT: Ms Jong

FIRST RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT: Ms Yeng

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3007 of 2008

APPEAL NUMBER: EA 107 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 18 August 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Finn, May & Ainslie -Wallace JJ

HEARING DATE: 4 February 2014

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATES: 26 July  and 17 August 2012

LOWER COURT MNC: [2012] FamCA 585
[2012] FamCA 686

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT: Mr Richard Bell

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT: James Lee Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT: Mr Jonathan Cohen

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT: Cambridge Lawyers

Orders

1. The Appeal filed 20 August 2012 be dismissed.

2. The Cross-appeal filed 9 November 2012 be dismissed.

3. There be no orders as to costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jong & Yeng & Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number:  EA 107 of 2012
File Number:  SYC 3007 of 2008

Ms Jong

Appellant and Cross-Respondent

and

Mr Yeng

First Respondent and Cross-Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the wife and cross-appeal by the husband against orders made by Johnston J on 26 July 2012 in property proceedings between them. One of the orders (Order 3) was subsequently amended by an order made by his Honour on 17 August 2012.

2. In summary, the effect of the orders is that the wife is to pay the husband the sum of $66,500 and discharge the mortgage on a property. That property is in the wife’s sole name. Orders were made should the wife fail to comply providing for the sale of the property and the division of the net proceeds between the parties. The parties were otherwise declared to be the sole owners of other property in their possession or control. The order (as amended) provided that should the property be sold the wife would receive 43.16 per cent of the net proceeds and the husband 56.84 per cent.

3. The issue in the appeal is a narrow one; whether the primary judge erred in law in making final property orders that did not entirely sever the financial relationship between the parties.

4. The cross-appeal too has a narrow focus, asserting that his Honour…