Legal Research
Cases
Kwok & Beng (No 5)

Kwok & Beng (No 5)

Case [2024] FedCFamC1F 463 10 July 2024

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Kwok & Beng (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 463

File number: SYC 1577 of 2021

Judgment of: HARPER J

Date of judgment: 10 July 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks orders leave to institute spouse maintenance and child support proceedings out of time – Where application for leave to commence spouse maintenance and child support departure proceedings filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (“Division 1”) – Where there is no original jurisdiction for Division 1 to hear the application without transfer from Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (“Division 2”) – Application for child support departure orders not pressed – Where the husband sought to discharge existing orders allowing the wife to fund the child’s school fees from sequestered funds – Where order is not a child support departure order – Insufficient evidence to warrant discharge of the order – Where both parties seek an interim property settlement of up to a total of $300,000 – Interim property settlement of $225,000 to the wife and $75,000 to the husband ordered.

Legislation:
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) Pt 7, s 99

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, s 44(3)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.13

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act2021 (Cth) s 50

Cases cited:
Bing & Bing (2007) FLC 93-318; [2007] FamCA 418

Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print (1988) 217 ALR 44

Gilford & Cavaco [2024] FedCFamC1A 55

Liu v The Age Company Limited (2016) 92 NSWLR 679 [2016] NSWCA 115

New South Wales v Kable (2013) 252 CLR 118; [2013] HCA 26

Old UGC Inc v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2006) 225 CLR 274; [2006] HCA 24

Panagi & Panagi [2021] FedCFamC1F 135

Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill [2006] NSWSC 578

Porter & Porter [2022] FedCFamC1F 102

Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101

Wei & Xia (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 679

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 47

Date of hearing: 30 May 2024

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Brickwood

Solicitor for the Applicant: Luminous Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Moutasallem

Solicitor for the Respondent: Kammoun Sukari Lawyers Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: No appearance required
ORDERS

SYC 1577 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS BENG

Applicant

AND:
MR KWOK

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within seven days of the date of these Orders, by way of interim property settlement, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to cause:
(a)the sum of $225,000 to be released to the Applicant Wife (“wife”) or at her direction; and
(b)the sum of $75,000 to be released to the Respondent Husband (“husband”)…

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 Kwok & Beng (No 5)

Details

AGLC: Kwok & Beng (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 463
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1F 463
Decision Date: 10 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ms Beng v Mr Kwok, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) considered several applications, including the wife’s request for leave to institute spouse maintenance and child support proceedings out of time, and the husband’s request to discharge an order allowing the wife to fund the child’s school fees from sequestered funds. Additionally, the court dealt with requests for interim property settlements and the appointment of experts to value properties and debts. The wife sought an interim property settlement of up to a total of $300,000, while the husband opposed this and sought to discharge the order allowing the wife to fund the child’s school fees. The court dismissed the wife's application for leave to institute spouse maintenance and child support proceedings out of time and declined to discharge the existing order. The court found insufficient evidence to warrant the discharge of the order. An interim property settlement of $225,000 to the wife and $75,000 to the husband was ordered. The court also directed the engagement of single experts to value the husband’s debt to AA Ltd and the operation of Country BB Law, and to provide a valuation of the parties' properties.

The court addressed several legal issues, including the jurisdiction of Division 1 to hear the application without transfer from Division 2, the sufficiency of evidence to discharge an existing order, and the necessity of appointing experts to value the husband’s debt and the properties. The court concluded that Division 1 lacked original jurisdiction to hear the application without a transfer from Division 2, as per the decision in Vang (No 3) and upheld in Gilford & Cavaco. The evidence presented did not warrant the discharge of the order allowing the wife to fund the child’s school fees. The court ordered the appointment of experts to value the husband’s debt and the properties, with the costs to be borne by the respective parties' solicitors.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 1577 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS BENG

Applicant

AND:

MR KWOK

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Within seven days of the date of these Orders, by way of interim property settlement, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to cause:

(a) the sum of $225,000 to be released to the Applicant Wife (“wife”) or at her direction; and

(b) the sum of $75,000 to be released to the Respondent Husband (“husband”) or at his direction,

from the funds standing in the trust account (in the name/s of the parties) of Kammoun Sukari Lawyers.

2. Within 21 days, that the parties shall jointly engage a single expert business valuer pursuant to Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to undertake a formal business valuation of the following:

(a) J Ltd (“J Ltd”);

(b) Debt of the husband in respect of his shares in J Ltd.

3. For the purposes of and to give effect to Order 2 herein:

(a) At all times, all instructions to the single expert business valuer shall be in writing and jointly provided by the representatives for both parties;

(b) Within seven days of the date of these orders, the husband shall provide to the wife three proposed business valuers for the purpose of providing a business valuation report;

(c) Within seven days of receipt of receiving the list of proposed valuers in compliance with Order 3(b) above, the wife shall elect and provide written confirmation to the husband’s legal representatives of the business valuer she nominates from the list of proposed valuers provided;

(d) In the event no reply is received by the husband’s legal representatives from the wife’s legal representatives within the time period required in compliance with Order 3(c) above, the husband has liberty to elect a single expert valuer from the list of proposed valuers for the purpose of preparing the required valuation;

(e) Within seven days of receipt of the wife’s nomination (or within seven days of non-compliance with Order 3(d)), the husband’s legal representatives shall prepare a proposed joint letter of instruction to the nominated single expert valuer and forward such letter of instruction to the wife’s legal representatives for their consideration;

(f) Within seven days of receipt by the wife’s legal representatives of the proposed joint letter of instruction in compliance with Order 3(e), the husband shall confirm his agreement to the release of the said joint letter in its original form or propose amendments that she seeks be made to such joint letter of instruction;

(g) Upon the finalisation of the joint letter of instruction, the husband shall forthwith cause his legal representatives to release the joint letter of instruction to the nominated single expert valuer; or

In the event no reply is received by the husband’s legal representatives from the wife’s legal representatives within the time period required in compliance with Order 3(f), the husband has liberty to release the proposed joint letter of instruction to the nominated single expert valuer on the assumption that the proposed joint letter of instructions is approved by both parties;

(h) The Single Expert Business Valuer’s fees are to be paid from the funds standing in the trust account, in the name/s of the parties, of Kammoun Sukari Lawyers.

4. Within 14 days of these orders, the parties shall exchange market appraisals for the purpose of agreeing to current market values of the property situated at Property CC, DD Street, District EE, City O, Country BB (“City O property”) and in the event no agreement can be reached within seven days of the exchange of appraisals, the parties shall jointly engage an expert (“Real Property Valuer”) pursuant to Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to undertake single expert valuation.

5. For the purposes of and to give effect to Order 4 herein:

(a) At all times, all instructions to the Real Property Valuer shall be in writing and jointly provided by the representatives for both parties;

(b) Within seven days of the date of these orders, the husband shall provide to the wife three proposed Real Property Valuers for the purpose of providing a business valuation report;

(c) Within seven days of receipt of the list of real property proposed valuers in compliance with Order 5(b) above, the wife shall elect and provide written confirmation to the husband’s legal representatives of the Real Property Valuer she nominates from the list of real property proposed valuers provided;

(d) In the event no reply is received by the husband’s legal representatives from the wife’s legal representatives within the time period required in compliance with Order 5(c) above, then the husband has liberty to elect a Real Property Valuer from the list of real property proposed valuers for the purpose of preparing the required valuation;

(e) Within seven days of receipt of the wife’s nomination (or within seven days of non-compliance with Order 5(d)), the husband’s legal representatives shall prepare a proposed joint letter of instruction to the nominated real property single expert valuer and forward such letter of instruction to the wife’s legal representatives for their consideration;

(f) Within seven days of receipt by the wife’s legal representatives of the proposed joint letter of instruction in compliance with Order 5(e), the wife shall confirm her agreement to the release of the said joint letter in its original form or propose amendments that she seeks be made;

(g) Upon the finalisation of the joint letter of instructions, the husband shall forthwith cause his legal representatives to release the joint letter of instruction to the nominated single real property expert valuer; or

In the event no reply is received by the husband’s legal representatives from the wife’s legal representatives to the proposed joint letter of instructions within the time period required in compliance with Order 4(f) herein, then the husband has liberty to release the proposed joint letter of instructions to the nominated real property single expert valuer on the assumption that the proposed joint letter of instructions is approved by both parties.

(h) The Single Expert Business Valuer’s fees are to be paid out from the funds held in the trust account of the husband’s solicitor pursuant to Order 1 of the orders made on 23 March 2021.

6. Within 21 days, the parties shall jointly engage an expert pursuant to Federal Circuit And Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to enquire into and provide a report in respect of the husband’s debt to AA Ltd and the operation of Country BB Law noting that if the single expert report is in Country BB language, it is to be translated into English before filing (“Single Expert Country BB Lawyer”).

7. For the purposes of and to give effect to Order 6 herein:

(a) At all times, all instructions to the Single Expert Country BB Lawyer shall be in writing and jointly provided by the representatives for both parties;

(b) Within seven days of the date of these orders, the husband shall provide to the wife three proposed Country BB Lawyers for the purpose of providing a report in respect of the debt;

(c) Within seven days of receipt of the list of proposed valuers in compliance with Order 7(b) above, the wife shall elect and provide written confirmation to the husband’s legal representatives of the Country BB Lawyer she nominates from the list of proposed Country BB Lawyers provided;

(d) In the event that no reply is received by the husband’s legal representatives from the wife’s legal representatives within the time period required in compliance with Order 7(c) above, then the husband has liberty to elect a single expert Country BB Lawyer from the list of proposed Country BB Lawyers for the purpose of preparing the report;

(e) Within seven days of receipt of the wife’s nomination (or within seven days of non-compliance with Order 7(d)), the husband’s legal representatives shall prepare a proposed joint letter of instruction to the nominated single expert Country BB Lawyer and forward such joint letter of instruction to the wife’s legal representatives for their consideration;

(f) Within seven days of receipt by the wife’s legal representatives of the proposed joint letter of instruction in compliance with Order 7(e), the husband shall confirm his agreement to the release of the said joint letter in its original form or propose amendments that she seeks be made;

In the event no reply is received by the husband’s legal representatives from the wife’s legal representatives to the proposed joint letter of instructions within the time period required in compliance with Order 7(f) herein, then the husband has liberty to release the proposed joint letter of instructions to the nominated single expert Country BB Lawyer on the assumption that the proposed joint letter of instructions is approved by both parties.

(h) The Single Expert Country BB Lawyer’s fees are to be paid out from the fund held in the trust account of the wife’s solicitor pursuant to Order 1 of the orders made on 23 March 2021.

8. The wife’s Further Amended Application in a Proceeding be otherwise dismissed.

9. The husband’s Response to the Further Amended Application in a Proceeding be otherwise dismissed.

10. There be no order as the costs of the applications the subject of these orders.

11. The proceedings be stood over to 10.00 am, or other time to be advised, on 5 September 2024 for callover.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I decline to discharge order 8 made on 11 March 2021 as varied on 23 March 2021. The wife’s application for a lump sum child support order should also be dismissed.Expert Evidence The parties agree that orders should be made for the appointment of single experts to value properties in Country BB. The proposal of the wife is in much shorter compass than the husband’s proposal. It requires the parties to co-operate and agree. The husband’s proposal contains a prescriptive process in the event of an absence of agreement. The parties could not agree upon the scope of the expert evidence. Their failure to agree militates in favour of the more prescriptive orders sought by the husband. The husband in particular also seeks an order for an expert to “in quire into and report upon a debt said to be owed by him to a company called AA Ltd and Country BB Law. The wife opposes this on the basis the husband has not provided evidence which shows such an expert is necessary. I disagree. At paragraph 137(d) the husband deposes as follows:In 2014, I, along with two other shareholders, entered into an agreement with the company named [AA Ltd] on behalf of [J Ltd]. In accordance with the contract, I am personally liable for any breaches of contract and in the event of such breach, I must pay compensation and give up my shares. Given [J Ltd] was significantly influenced by COVID-19, we could not meet our obligations, and currently, I am in breach of the contract. On about 31 December 2019, the [AA Ltd] sent me a letter of demand seeking compensation of 25.56% of shares and […] 8,712,735 [local currency], which they did in accordance with the contract. To date, my personal liability resulted from breaching this contract has reached about $1,133,296.80. This evidence may or may not be true, but in my view it raises a sufficient basis for the proposed expert evidence. The parties agreed that the fees of the valuer of Country BB properties should be met from the funds held in solicitors’ trust accounts, but the wife proposed such fees come from the funds held by her solicitor while the husband proposed the fees be paid from the funds held by his solicitor. I will order the valuation expert fees be paid from the funds held by the wife’s solicitors. The costs of the Country BB law expert should be met from the funds held by the husband’s solicitors.Other Matters On 30 May 2024, when the interim hearing had concluded, I made the following Notations:A. On 30 April 2024 the Respondent Wife (“wife”) sought to file an Initiating Application in the separate Court, being Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia seeking leave to commence as an additional matrimonial cause a claim for spousal maintenance out of time and for orders for spouse maintenance in the event that leave was granted.B. The solicitors for the wife drew the attention of the Registry to the decision of Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101 (“Vang (No 3)”) in which I expressed the view that by reason of s 50 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), such application being for a matrimonial cause as defined in s 4 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) was prohibited from being commenced in the higher Court, being Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.C. The interpretation of s 50 in Vang (No 3) was upheld in the Full Court by majority in the decision of Gilford & Cavaco [2024] FedCFamC1A 55.D. Accordingly, the Registry is requested to receive for filing any fresh initiating application by the wife seeking leave to institute spousal maintenance proceedings and any orders for such proceedings to be transferred from Division 2 to Division 1 and consolidated with proceedings SYC1577/2021.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Kwok & Beng (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 463

Most Recent Citation

Kwok & Beng (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 743

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Kwok & Beng (No 6)
[2024] FedCFamC1F 743 Para 3

…lia, now known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), and transferred to this Court on 3 August 2021 ( Kwok & Beng (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 463 (“ Kwok & Beng (No 5) ”)). The application determined by that judgment also included an application by the wife for spouse maintenance which, as expl…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Gilford & Cavaco
[2024] FedCFamC1A 55 Para 17

…ing in Vang & Chung (No 3) was considered and approved by majority (Harper and Brasch JJ) in the Full Court decision Gilford & Cavaco [2024] FedCFamC1A 55 at [33]–[43] and [48]–[54]. The conclusion reached is that after 1 September 2021, even if proceedings have been transferred from Division 2 to this Court, any fresh…
Vang & Chung (No 3)
[2024] FedCFamC1F 101 Para 17

…ute both proceedings. The precise jurisdictional problem facing her claim to spouse maintenance was considered at length by me in Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101 at [38]–[74] (“ Vang & Chung (No 3) ”). In summary, a proceeding claiming spouse maintenance is a separate “matrimonial cause”. By reason of s 50 of…
Wei & Xia (No 5)
[2023] FedCFamC1F 679 Para 10

…disclosure. The consequences of disclosure are well known in this Court. I accept the applicable principles are as I set them out in Wei & Xia (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 679 at [175]. The Court may make an order beyond the ascertained property or that all known assets should be awarded to the innocent party, on the basis…
Porter & Porter
[2022] FedCFamC1F 102 Para 15

…dgment it is important to reiterate a description of the changes which came into force from 1 September 2021. I repeat what I said in Porter & Porter [2022] FedCFamC1F 102 ( “Porter”) at [61] as follows: 61. … This Court is a court created by statute. On 1 September 2021 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia…
Panagi & Panagi
[2021] FedCFamC1F 135 Para 16

…r a child support departure was made prior to either transfer to this Court on 3 August 2021 or 1 September 2021. As I pointed out in Panagi & Panagi [2021] FedCFamC1F 135 at [37] a proceeding under the Assessment Act for a child support departure order is a separate cause of action brought under an entirely different s…
Liu v The Age Company Ltd
[2016] NSWCA 115

…Instant Print (1988) 217 ALR 44 Gilford & Cavaco [2024] FedCFamC1A 55 Liu v The Age Company Limited (2016) 92 NSWLR 679 [2016] NSWCA 115 New South Wales v Kable (2013) 252 CLR 118; [2013] HCA 26 Old UGC Inc v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2006) 225 CLR 274; [2006] HCA 24 Panagi & Panagi [2021]…
New South Wales v Kable
[2013] HCA 26

…amC1A 55 Liu v The Age Company Limited (2016) 92 NSWLR 679 [2016] NSWCA 115 New South Wales v Kable (2013) 252 CLR 118; [2013] HCA 26 Old UGC Inc v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2006) 225 CLR 274; [2006] HCA 24 Panagi & Panagi [2021] FedCFamC1F 135 Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill […
Osferatu & Osferatu
[2012] FamCA 408 Para 3

…ent at final hearing and the remaining property will be sufficient to meet the legitimate expectations of both parties (see Osferatu & Osferatu [2012] FamCA 408 at [41]; Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692). The Court takes a “broad brush” approach to the parties’ financial circumstances, by identifying their propert…
Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders)
[2011] FamCAFC 126 Para 3

…entertain and determine the application, and secondly the substantive step, namely the nature of the order which should be made ( Strahan & Strahan [2011] FamCAFC 126 (“ Strahan ”)). The Court has a wide unfettered discretion and power under s 79 and s 80(1)(h) of the Act to make an interim order adjusting property i…
Bing & Bing
[2007] FamCA 418

…h) r 1.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 50 Cases cited: Bing & Bing (2007) FLC 93-318; [2007] FamCA 418 Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print (1988) 217 ALR 44 Gilford & Cavaco [2024] FedCFamC1A 55 Liu v The Age Company Limited (2016) 92 NSWLR 679 [2016] NSWCA 115 New South Wales v Kabl…
Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill
[2006] NSWSC 578 Para 19

…rt on the hearing of the original application ( Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print (1988) 217 ALR 44 at [46]; Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill [2006] NSWSC 578 at [14]; Liu v The Age Company Limited (2016) 92 NSWLR 679 at [199]). The husband sought to discharge those orders on the basis that they permitted t…
Old UGC Inc v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales
[2006] HCA 24

…South Wales v Kable (2013) 252 CLR 118; [2013] HCA 26 Old UGC Inc v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2006) 225 CLR 274; [2006] HCA 24 Panagi & Panagi [2021] FedCFamC1F 135 Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill [2006] NSWSC 578 Porter & Porter [2022] FedCFamC1F 102 Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] Fed…
Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2)
[1993] HCA 6 Para 19

…n discovered which could not reasonably have been put before the Court on the hearing of the original application ( Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print (1988) 217 ALR 44 at [46]; Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill [2006] NSWSC 578 at [14]; Liu v The Age Company Limited (2016) 92 NSWLR 679 at [199]). The husband…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)
50 2 mentions (from Para 15)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 10)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 26)

File number:	SYC 1577 of 2021
Judgment of:	HARPER J
Date of judgment:	10 July 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks orders leave to institute spouse maintenance and child support proceedings out of time – Where application for leave to commence spouse maintenance and child support departure proceedings filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (“Division 1”) – Where there is no original jurisdiction for Division 1 to hear the application without transfer from Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (“Division 2”) – Application for child support departure orders not pressed – Where the husband sought to discharge existing orders allowing the wife to fund the child’s school fees from sequestered funds – Where order is not a child support departure order – Insufficient evidence to warrant discharge of the order – Where both parties seek an interim property settlement of up to a total of $300,000 – Interim property settlement of $225,000 to the wife and $75,000 to the husband ordered.
Legislation:	Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) Pt 7, s 99 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, s 44(3) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act2021 (Cth) s 50
Cases cited:	Bing & Bing (2007) FLC 93-318; [2007] FamCA 418 Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print (1988) 217 ALR 44 Gilford & Cavaco [2024] FedCFamC1A 55 Liu v The Age Company Limited (2016) 92 NSWLR 679 [2016] NSWCA 115 New South Wales v Kable (2013) 252 CLR 118; [2013] HCA 26 Old UGC Inc v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2006) 225 CLR 274; [2006] HCA 24 Panagi & Panagi [2021] FedCFamC1F 135 Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill [2006] NSWSC 578 Porter & Porter [2022] FedCFamC1F 102 Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101 Wei & Xia (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 679
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	47
Date of hearing:	30 May 2024
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Brickwood
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Luminous Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Moutasallem
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Kammoun Sukari Lawyers Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	No appearance required

SYC 1577 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS BENG Applicant
AND:	MR KWOK Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	HARPER J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 JULY 2024