Liesa Wilson v Andrew Wilson - [2024] NSWSC 506

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Liesa Wilson v Andrew Wilson [2024] NSWSC 506
Hearing dates: 30 April 2024
Date of orders: 30 April 2024
Decision date: 30 April 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) Judgment in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant in the sum of USD $604,388.33.
(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – foreign judgments and orders – recognition or enforcement at common law – Fourth Judicial District Court of Utah County, USA – decree of divorce – spousal support and property division orders – judgment recognised and enforced

Legislation Cited:
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100
Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), s 11

Cases Cited:
Bank of China Ltd v Chen (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1168
Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) (2020) 102 NSWLR 435; [2020] NSWSC 588
Doe v Howard [2015] VSC 75
Linprint Pty Ltd v Hexham Textiles Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 58
Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co Ltd v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58

Texts Cited:
M Davies et al, Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia (10th ed, 2020, LexisNexis Butterworths)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Liesa Wilson (Plaintiff)
Andrew John Wilson (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Bonnell with S Blaxell (Solicitors) (Plaintiff)
No appearance (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Henry William Lawyers (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2023/274900

ex tempore JUDGMENT (revised)

By statement of claim filed on 28 August 2023, the plaintiff, Liesa Wilson, seeks the recognition and enforcement of a foreign monetary judgment obtained by her on 9 March 2023 in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Utah County in the State of Utah, United States of America (“Utah Court”).

Proceedings in absence of the defendant

The matter has proceeded before me ex parte. Mr Bonnell and Mr Blaxell, solicitors, have appeared for Ms Wilson, but there has been no appearance for the defendant, Andrew John Wilson, whom I am satisfied is resident in the State of New South Wales. I am also satisfied that Mr Wilson has been duly served with the statement of claim. So much is obvious for at least two reasons. First, Mr Wilson has filed a defence dated 22 December 2023, to which I will return. Secondly, he has appeared before the Registrar at least once on a case management hearing. According to the record of proceedings on the court file, that was on 15 December 2023 when directions for preparation were made and the matter was adjourned for further directions hearing to check readiness to proceed.
When the matter was before the Registrar on 22 November 2023 before he filed his defence, she seems to have made orders for substituted service on Mr Wilson at an email address, being the same address that Mr Wilson gave as his contact email in the defence filed on 22 December 2023.
While there was no appearance by Mr Wilson on 25 March 2024 before Registrar Hedge…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Liesa Wilson v Andrew Wilson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWSC 506
Decision Date: 30 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liesa Wilson initiated legal proceedings against Andrew Wilson in an Australian court, seeking recognition and enforcement of a divorce decree from the Fourth Judicial District Court of Utah County, USA, which included orders for spousal support and property division. The court was tasked with determining whether the foreign divorce decree should be recognised and enforced under Australian law. The central legal issues were whether the Utah court had jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings, and whether the spousal support and property division orders were enforceable in Australia.

The court examined the jurisdictional basis of the Utah court's divorce decree and found that it had proper jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the divorce. The court then assessed the enforceability of the spousal support and property division orders. It found that these orders were not inherently unenforceable and were consistent with Australian public policy. The court determined that there were no compelling reasons to refuse recognition or enforcement of the orders, and thus the foreign judgment should be recognised and enforced in Australia.

The court concluded that the divorce decree from the Fourth Judicial District Court of Utah County was properly obtained and enforceable in Australia. The spousal support and property division orders were also recognised and enforceable. Consequently, the court granted the application for recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment.

Orders