Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Application pursuant to Order 16.05 Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 to reopen proceedings when orders had been made in the husband’s absence – Where reasonable explanation for absence clearly demonstrated – where husband’s material had been filed and was considered in the undefended determination of the matter – where the husband’s case could fairly be described as incapable of successful prosecution – lengthy and extensive history of litigation – where with proceedings relate to both property adjustment and parenting – where the child the subject of the proceedings will, by the time of any rehearing, have attained her majority or an age where the orders sought by the husband would not, in all probability, be made – where there is no utility in re-opening the proceedings – application to re-open dismissed.
Dismiss the Application in a Case filed 14 January 2020.
Remove all issues from the list of cases awaiting hearing.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Leong & Wu (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA
CAC 1783 of 2013
MR LEONG
Applicant
And
MS WU
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings come before the Court today as the consequence of an Application in a Case filed 14 January 2020. The Application in a Case is one of a myriad of applications that have been filed in these proceedings to date.
The proceedings, on their face, relate to property adjustment and parenting arrangements.
The proceedings have been on foot, it would seem, for a period well in excess of six years, having been commenced with an Initiating Application filed in or about November 2012.
During the conduct of the proceedings, which were concluded by final orders made on an undefended basis 18 November 2019, there have been a dozen or more interim or interlocutory applications filed by the…
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 LEONG & WU (No.2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
LEONG & WU (No.2) [2020] FCCA 271
Case
[2020] FCCA 271
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application filed on 14 January 2020 by Leong & Wu (No.2) in the Federal Court of Australia. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, however, the court was required to consider the application and make a determination regarding its future progression.
The central legal issue before Judge Harman was whether the application filed by Leong & Wu (No.2) should proceed. This involved an assessment of the application's merits and its readiness for hearing, leading to a decision on whether to retain it on the court's active list or to remove it.
Judge Harman ordered that the application filed on 14 January 2020 be dismissed. Consequently, all issues associated with this application were removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Dismiss the Application in a Case filed 14 January 2020.
2.
Remove all issues from the list of cases awaiting hearing.