Liveson and Zhou - [2019] FamCA 878

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LIVESON & ZHOU

[2019] FamCA 878

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where the Husband seeks an adjournment of the trial because he and his legal representatives were not ready for the trial as a result of the Husband’s ill-health and impecuniosity – Where there was no other reason provided for the lateness of the application for an adjournment – Where the application is dismissed as it is not in the interests of either party for the adjournment to be granted.

Elgin & Elgin (No. 2) [2012] FamCA 1158

APPLICANT:

Mr Liveson

RESPONDENT:

Ms Zhou

FILE NUMBER:

LEC

610

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

29 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Forrest J

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Mort

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Armour Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Alexander

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Somerville Laundry Lomax

Orders

That the Application in a Case filed 18 April 2019, be dismissed.
That leave be granted to the legal representatives for the applicant husband to withdraw from the proceedings.

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

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: LEC 610 of 2011

Mr Liveson

Applicant

And

Ms Zhou

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The parties in these property adjustment proceedings commenced cohabitation in or about 1998 after they met and commenced a relationship in Melbourne. They married in 1999.
There remains, apparently, some dispute about when they actually separated, but on any account, it was after around a decade of marriage, give or take a couple of years. That is a fact about which there is some fairly decisive evidence, but which nevertheless remains disputed at this point in the proceedings.
The wife has an adult daughter of an earlier relationship but she and the husband had no children of their union.
The wife is of Chinese origin. She had obtained professional qualifications as a health care worker earlier in her adult life in China, before she came to Australia and was studying in Melbourne. Those qualifications were not recognised when she came to Australia and she and the husband met whilst they were both studying. After they married, and the wife obtained permanent residency in this country through a spousal visa, she began working as a health care assistant whilst she undertook the process of obtaining recognition of her professional training and experience and…

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 Liveson and Zhou

Details

AGLC: Liveson and Zhou [2019] FamCA 878
Case: [2019] FamCA 878
Decision Date: 29 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *Liveson and Zhou* concerned an application filed on 18 April 2019, which was subsequently dismissed by Forrest J. The proceedings involved a dispute between the parties, Liveson and Zhou, although the precise nature of their dispute is not detailed in the provided text. The court also granted leave for the legal representatives of the applicant husband to withdraw from the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the application filed by the applicant husband. The court was required to consider whether to grant or dismiss this application. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to permit the legal representatives of the applicant husband to cease their representation in the matter.

Forrest J dismissed the application filed by the applicant husband. While the specific reasons for this dismissal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, the court's decision indicates that the application did not meet the necessary legal threshold for success. The court also exercised its discretion to allow the withdrawal of the applicant husband's legal representatives, suggesting that their continued involvement was no longer required or appropriate. The final orders reflect the court's disposition of both the application and the representation of the applicant husband.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Application in a Case filed 18 April 2019, be dismissed.

That leave be granted to the legal representatives for the applicant husband to withdraw from the proceedings.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.