Mayer & Beck
[2021] FamCA 302
•14 May 2021
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mayer & Beck [2021] FamCA 302
File number(s): SYC 6990 of 2020 Judgment of: ALTOBELLI J Date of judgment: 14 May 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION – Where the Applicant initiated proceedings in this Court to vary child maintenance orders made in the District Court of Hong Kong – Where the Respondent initiated first-in-time parallel proceedings in Hong Kong – Where the Applicant resides in Country L – Where the Respondent and the child currently reside in Australia – Consideration of reg 36 of the Family Law Regulations in circumstances where Hong Kong is a reciprocal jurisdiction – Consideration of forum non conveniens principles – Anti-suit injunction granted. Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 13
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 66S
Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) regs 36, 38
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
Cases cited: Howarth & Howarth & Anor (No. 2) [2017] FCCA 1949
Kent & Kent (2017) FLC 93-792; [2017] FamCAFC 157
Lan and Hao (No. 2) (2017) FLC 93-795; [2017] FamCAFC 175
LN v SCCM (High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of Appeal, Hon Cheung, Kwan and Lam JJA, 4 June 2013)
Naczek & Dowler [2017] FamCA 105
Obannon & Scarffe (2021) FLC 94-009; [2021] FamCAFC 33
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197; [1988] HCA 32
Rogers & Rogers (2010) 44 Fam LR 235; [2010] FamCA 1069
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460
Teo & Guan (2015) FLC 93-653; [2015] FamCAFC 94
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538; [1990] HCA 55
Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92-338, 849; [1992] FamCA 69
Number of paragraphs: 33 Date of last submission/s: 11 March 2021 Date of hearing: 11 March 2021 Place: Sydney via videoconference Solicitor for the Applicant: Petkovic & Todd The Respondent: In person ORDERS
SYC 6990 of 2020 BETWEEN: MR MAYER
Applicant
AND: MS BECK
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
ALTOBELLI J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 MAY 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Anti-Suit Injunction
1.NOTING THAT the Court is satisfied that the Family Court of Australia is not a clearly inappropriate forum to resolve the dispute, the Respondent by herself, her agents or employees or servants is restrained, and an injunction hereby issued restraining her from continuing, maintaining and/or furthering the proceedings …/2006 as filed, in so far as those proceedings relate to the Child Maintenance Orders and/or the arrears relating thereto.
Disclosure
2.By way of participating in the Australian proceedings, the Respondent shall comply with the order 5 of the orders dated 1 December 2020 by exchanging all the following financial documents required by rule 4.26 and rule 12.02 of the Family Law Rules within 28 days hereof, including:
(a)a copy of the party’s three (3) most recent taxation returns and assessments.
(b)if relevant, documents about any superannuation interest of the party, including:
(i)the completed superannuation information form for the party’s superannuation interest; and
(ii)if the party is a member of a self-managed superannuation fund— a copy of the trust deed and the three (3) most recent financial statements for the fund.
(c)for a corporation in relation to which the party has a duty of disclosure under rule 13.04, including Company B and Company C:
(i)a copy of the financial statements for the three (3) most recent financial years, including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, depreciation schedules and taxation returns;
(ii)a copy of the corporation’s most recent annual return that lists the directors and shareholders; and
(iii)if relevant, a copy of the corporation’s constitution.
(d)for a trust in relation to which the party has a duty of disclosure under rule 13.04:
(i)a copy of the financial statements for the three (3) most recent financial years, including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, depreciation schedules and taxation returns; and
(ii)a copy of the trust deed.
(e)for a partnership in relation to which the party has a duty of disclosure under rule 13.04:
(i)a copy of the financial statements for the three (3) most recent financial years, including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, depreciation schedules and taxation returns; and
(ii)a copy of the partnership agreement.
(f)for a person or entity mentioned above — any business activity statements for the 12 months ending immediately before the first court date.
(g)copies of all relevant statements from any bank (including D Bank), building society (including those for the respondent’s property interests in City E and in Brisbane) or other financial institution for the last three (3) years.
Other
3.The Respondent’s application for interim orders, as filed by way of Response on 11 December 2020, be dismissed.
4.The matter be listed for mention on 6 July 2021 at 9.30am.
Costs
5.The issue of costs be reserved to be determined at final hearing.
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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mayer & Beck has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALTOBELLI J:
INTRODUCTION
These reasons for judgment explain why the Court has made the interim orders sought by the Applicant father in his Amended Initiating Application filed 26 February 2021 and his subsequent minute of order. The effect of these orders is to restrain the Respondent mother from continuing, maintaining and/or furthering proceedings in the District Court of Hong Kong in relation to child maintenance for their daughter X born in 2003, who is nearly 18 years old. In effect, the Application is for an anti-suit injunction. The final orders he proposed would thus be dealt with in this court.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant in this case is X’s father. He is 54 years old and was born in Australia. X’s mother is the Respondent. She is 55 years old and was born in Country G. They married in 2001, separated in 2006, and were divorced in Hong Kong in late 2007 (on the Respondent’s case) or early 2008 (on the Applicant’s case).
The parties lived in Hong Kong at the time of their cohabitation and the birth of X. In 2005, the father accepted a three year deployment with the company that he worked with to City H, Country J, and the entire family relocated there. After separation, the Applicant returned to employment with his employer in Hong Kong, but the Respondent and X remained in City H.
In 2017 the Applicant’s work license was suspended due to medical reasons and subsequently revoked. He returned to live and work in Australia. He also commenced receiving income protection insurance payments of US$3,000 per calendar month. Later, he commenced as a freelancer initially in Australia, and then in Country K. The Applicant relocated with his new family to Country L, commuting to Country K as work required. In January 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Applicant no longer derived an income. He could no longer afford to pay child maintenance, and indeed only made payments up until July, and then one payment in September 2020.
Meanwhile, in 2018 the Respondent relocated with X from City H to City N in Country G. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondent then relocated with X to Australia where they both remain. In January 2021, X commenced Year 12 at M School.
In 2007, child maintenance orders were made in Hong Kong. These orders provided that the Applicant pay periodic child maintenance for X and her elder sister (who turned 18 in 2015), at the amount of initially US$3,000 per month, then increased to US$3,300 per month in 2008. The orders provided for these payments to continue until each child turns 18 or ceases full time education, whichever is the later. In 2017 the orders were varied by consent in the Hong Kong Court so that the father’s child maintenance for X was reduced to US$3,000 per month inclusive of school fees. The current dispute only concerns child maintenance payments in respect of X, and not her sister.
On 19 August 2020 the Respondent commenced proceedings in the Hong Kong Court by way of inter-partes summons, seeking that the Applicant pay US$6,000, being the arrears for child maintenance for July and August 2020. She further sought a penal notice and costs. These inter-partes summons are marked as Exhibit A2. On 2 October 2020 the Applicant commenced the present proceedings in the Family Court of Australia for orders pursuant to reg 36 and reg 38 of the Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’). The Applicant amended his Application on 26 February 2021. By that time, both the 2007 and 2017 Hong Kong orders were registered with the Family Court of Australia. In his Amended Application he asks this Court to discharge the orders made in Hong Kong, or otherwise suspend their operation with effect from the date to which the maintenance stands paid, with a further order acknowledging that any order to discharge or suspend would be a provisional one. He proposes a fresh child maintenance order in the sum of AU$300 per week until such time X completes her secondary education.
THE HEARING
The Applicant was represented by his solicitor, and the Respondent represented herself. The Court formed the impression that the Respondent was an intelligent and articulate woman who struggled with the legal concepts arising from this case and was understandably emotionally invested in the proceedings. She clearly would have preferred to settle the case in its entirety if possible.
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
In support of his case, the Applicant relied on the following documents:
(a)Affidavit of the husband filed 2 October 2020;
(b)Financial Statement filed 2 October 2020;
(c)Affidavit of the husband filed 21 December 2020;
(d)Amended Initiating Application filed 26 February 2021;
(e)Affidavit of the husband filed 26 February 2021;
(f)Case Outline document filed 9 March 2021;
(g)Proposed minute of order, marked as Exhibit A1; and
(h)Inter-partes summons dated 19 August 2020, marked as Exhibit A2.
In support of her case, the Respondent relied on the following documents:
(a)Response to Initiating Application filed 11 December 2020;
(b)Affidavit of the wife filed 11 December 2020;
(c)Financial Statement filed 11 December 2020; and
(d)Affidavit filed 5 March 2021.
JURISDICTION
Regulation 36 of the Regulations provides: –
36 Party in Australia may apply to vary etc overseas maintenance order, agreement or liability
(1) This regulation applies to:
(a) an overseas maintenance order or agreement registered in a court before 1 July 2000; and
(b) an overseas maintenance entry liability or a registered maintenance liability.
(2) Application may be made to a court having jurisdiction under the Act for an order discharging, suspending, reviving or varying an order, agreement or liability to which this regulation applies.
(3) An application may be made by:
(a) the person for whose benefit the order or agreement was made, or for whose benefit the liability was created; or
(b) the person against whom the order was made or the person who is liable to make payments because of the agreement or the liability; or
(c) the Secretary, on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
(4) The law to be applied to determination of an application is the law in force in Australia under the Act.
I note that reg 36 is titled “Party in Australia may apply to vary etc overseas maintenance order, agreement or liability”, but that the Applicant is not presently in Australia. In my view, this discrepancy does not disentitle the Applicant from the benefit of reg 36. Section 13 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) details the material that is considered to be a part of an Act. Interestingly, while s 13(2)(d) captures “any heading to a Chapter, Part, Division or Subdivision appearing before the first section of the Act”, there is no reference made within the provision to headings of sections within an Act. The Court therefore has regard only to the substance of reg 36 and I am satisfied that in these circumstances, the Applicant has standing to bring his present application under reg 36(3)(b) of the Regulations.
The Court is satisfied that Hong Kong is a reciprocating jurisdiction for the purposes of the Regulations. The Applicant has registered the maintenance liability in Australia by filing his Affidavit of 21 December 2020 annexing the child maintenance orders in question. The Court is satisfied that the orders are a registered maintenance liability. Alternatively, the Court is satisfied that, consistent with the decision of his Honour Cronin J in Naczek & Dowler [2017] FamCA 105 at [27], it is a registrable maintenance liability.
This Court thus has the power to consider the Application, but notes that any final order made will be provisional, consistent with reg 38 of the Regulations.
THE FORUM ISSUE
The Applicant conducted his case on the basis that whilst this Court had jurisdiction to determine his Application, so too did the Hong Kong Court. He emphasised, however, that neither party resides in Hong Kong, and the child is in Australia. On this basis, he submits, Australia is not a clearly inappropriate forum in which to deal with this dispute. The Applicant submits, and the Court accepts, that the forum non conveniens doctrine does apply to the reciprocal arrangements for recognition and enforcement of foreign Court orders as contemplated by reg 36: Rogers & Rogers (2010) 44 Fam LR 235; Howarth & Howarth & Anor (No. 2) [2017] FCCA 1949.
In Kent & Kent (2017) FLC 93-792, the Full Court stated at 77,515, [31]:
31.In his written outline before the primary judge at [6.1], Senior Counsel for the husband outlined what he called the “non-exhaustive list” of “relevant matters to be considered [as] set out in ... Henry at 592-3”. Senior Counsel’s “non-exhaustive list” repeated verbatim a summary that O’Reilly J extracted from Henry in Whung v Whung and Ors. We respectfully adopt what her Honour there said as an accurate and convenient summary of the non-exhaustive list of some of “the matters properly to be taken into account” when considering whether Australia is a “clearly inappropriate forum”:
1.No question arises unless the courts of the respective countries have jurisdiction with respect to the parties and their marriage.
2.If both have jurisdiction, it will be relevant to consider whether each will recognise the other’s orders and decrees. If the orders of the foreign court will not be recognised in Australia, that will ordinarily dispose of any suggestion that the local proceedings should not continue. However, if the orders of the foreign court will be recognised in Australia, it will be relevant to consider whether any orders may need to be enforced in other countries and, if so, the relative ease with which that can be done.
3.It will be relevant to consider which forum can provide more effectively for complete resolution of the matters involved in the parties’ controversy.
4.Other considerations include the order in which the proceedings were instituted.
5.Other considerations include the stage which the proceedings have reached.
6.Other considerations including the costs that have been incurred.
7.It will be relevant to consider the connection of the parties and their marriage with each of the jurisdictions and to have regard to the issues on which relief might depend in those jurisdictions.
8.It will be relevant to consider whether, having regard to their resources and their understanding of language, the parties are able to participate in the respective proceedings on an equal footing.
9.It will be relevant to consider “the general circumstances of the case”, taking into account “the true nature and full extent of the issues involved.”
(Emphasis in original)(Citations omitted)
The Full Court has recently restated the test. In Obannon & Scarffe (2021) FLC 94-009 at [100]-[101] the Court stated:
The principles to be applied in determining forum non conveniens are well settled. They are set down by the High Court of Australia in Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay and Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd as explained in the context of family law litigation in Henry.
Whether or not Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum depends on an assessment of the following non-exhaustive factors (derived from Lord Goth’s factors in Spiliada) as approved of in Voth and as added to by Henry
(at 592–593):
a) Factors of convenience and expense, such as the location of witnesses;
b) Whether, having regard to their resources and understanding of language, the parties are able to participate in the respective proceedings on an equal footing;
c) The connection of the parties and their marriage with each of the potential jurisdictions and the issues on which relief may depend in those jurisdictions;
d) Whether the other potential forum will recognise Australian orders and vice-versa and the ease of enforcement in each country;
e) Which forum may provide more effectively for a complete resolution of the matters involved in the parties’ controversy;
f) The order in which each of the proceedings were instituted, the stage which they have reached and the costs incurred in each jurisdiction;
g) The governing law of the dispute;
h) The place of residence of the parties;
i) The availability of an alternative forum; and
j) Any legitimate juridical advantage to litigating in either jurisdiction
These considerations will be applied to the facts of this case.
The Respondent referred the Court to a decision of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of Appeal in LN v SCCM (High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of Appeal, Hon Cheung, Kwan and Lam JJA, 4 June 2013). Her contention was that the decision supported her case, both on the facts and law. The decision of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal does not assist the present Court in making this decision. The facts and legal principles applied are similar, but not identical. In LN v SCCM, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal relied on the ‘more appropriate forum’ test contained in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460. However, there is a strong line of High Court authority in Australia that the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test should be preferred when determining forum non conveniens issues: Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 and Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538.
There is no question that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the matter, but any order made will be provisional. The Applicant clearly understood this. The Applicant’s solicitor, who appeared to have experience litigating in the Hong Kong Courts, indicated that she felt quite confident that any order made in the present proceedings would be accepted in Hong Kong as a formality. In this regard, the solicitor for the Applicant relied on comments made by a judge in Hong Kong at a Court event relating to this matter suggesting, at least inferentially, that she could not understand why maintenance proceedings should be conducted there, given the absence of any current connection to Hong Kong. This judgment is annexed as Annexure “A-03” to the Affidavit of the Applicant filed 21 December 2020. Indeed, her Honour’s comments are understandable in the present circumstances, where X’s expenses are incurred in Australian dollars. Thus, an Australian order overcomes any risk of a shortfall in maintenance should there be adverse currency fluctuations for any Hong Kong child maintenance order made in Hong Kong dollars.
X attends school here in Australia. She lives here, and has two part-time jobs here. Her mother currently lives in Australia. Initially, in her Affidavit, the Respondent contends that they are both here temporarily, and intend to return to Country G which she describes as their home. The Court accepts the Respondent’s contention that they are both permanent residents in Country G, and hold both Country G and Australian passports. The Court accepts that the mother conducts a retail business in Country G which, to use her words, was “destroyed” by the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the Court were to accept the Respondent mother’s contention that they are only in Australia temporarily, this does not affect the forum issue. There was no suggestion in the Respondent’s case that Country G was a more appropriate forum for the determination of the maintenance dispute. Even if there were such a submission, and Country G were a more appropriate forum, it does not necessarily follow that Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum: Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538, 558. The factors that indicate that Australia is not an inappropriate forum continue to apply. The Respondent led no evidence about how, and when, she could return to Country G with the X, and whether she would remove X from Year 12 at M School before the conclusion of the school year. Indeed, by contrast, in her oral submissions, she explained that X wanted to complete her HSC year in Town O, and then attend university in Melbourne.
This Court has clear statutory powers to order child maintenance on the basis of needs and capacity to pay. Moreover, there seems no concern about whether a Hong Kong Court would recognise and enforce any order made by this court, if that is relevant.
It does appear that, notwithstanding the above, the Respondent did commence her proceedings in Hong Kong before the Applicant commenced his proceedings in Australia. This is clearly a relevant, but not necessarily determinative factor: Teo & Guan (2015) FLC 93-653 at 80,324, [139], and in this regard it is notable that the proceedings were only commenced six weeks apart. There is also evidence that the Applicant’s solicitors wrote to the Respondent prior to the commencement of the Hong Kong proceedings as a pre-action measure, foreshadowing proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. This correspondence is contained in Annexure A-9 to the Applicant’s Affidavit filed 2 October 2020.
The evidence suggests that both proceedings are at a relatively early stage. The Applicant submits, and the Court has indeed formed an impression that, the proceedings could probably proceed to finality in Australia sooner than in Hong Kong. This is based on the Applicant’s Affidavit annexing Court documentation from Hong Kong, suggesting that coronavirus cases had the impact of limiting the number of cases going forward. In Australia, this matter could be listed as a half to one day matter, in my docket, probably in the next four months. The Respondent’s own material indicates that settlement discussions are being undertaken in Hong Kong between the parties’ respective lawyers, but it is hard to discern why those discussions could not continue, whether in Hong Kong or in Australia.
The impression formed is that significant costs have been incurred by both parties, in both proceedings to date, though in the Australian proceedings the Respondent is representing herself, whilst she is instructing lawyers in Hong Kong. The mounting legal costs are a reason to grant the injunction sought by the Applicant, rather than decline the same.
Perhaps the strongest reason to make the order proposed by the Applicant is that of the connection with each of the parties to the jurisdictions in question. The evidence indicates that they are both Australian citizens. The Applicant lives in Country L, and the Respondent is currently residing in Australia. There is no disadvantage by language or unfamiliarity with Australia. Neither party lives in Hong Kong. The Respondent has not lived in Hong Kong since 2005, according to the Respondent herself. The Applicant has not lived in Hong Kong since July 2017. For the proceedings to continue in Hong Kong, both parties would need to rely on their respective lawyers in circumstances where neither party is physically present there. At least in Australia the Respondent could, as she has done so far, conduct the proceedings in her own right.
There are a number of other relevant circumstances. The Applicant can participate in proceedings in Australia by way of video link using Microsoft Teams technology. It is not clear whether either the Applicant or Respondent could do so if the proceedings were in Hong Kong and it is thus unclear whether, given the global pandemic, they could even travel to Hong Kong and, if so, what quarantine requirements would be in place.
Both parties raise concerns about the nondisclosure by the other of relevant financial documents. The Applicant is particularly vocal about concerns in relation to the Respondent. This Court has a wide range of powers available to it to enforce disclosure, and the drawing of adverse inferences is a significant deterrence to nondisclosure of relevant financial information: Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92-338, at 849. The parallel situation in Hong Kong is unknown. There is, of course, an issue about arrears of child maintenance, and at what date, if at all, the existing order should stand discharged. This issue can be determined as part of the substantive matter. There would be no disadvantage to the Respondent to doing so in this Court. There is no doubt that this Court has the ability to backdate child maintenance: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 66S.
The risk of parallel proceedings in this matter is a real one. Based on the Court’s assessment above, there appear to be real advantages to the parties in conducting the proceedings in Australia, and disadvantages in conducting the proceedings in Hong Kong. There is obvious benefit in avoiding parallel proceedings.
This Court concludes that Australia is not a clearly inappropriate forum. The issues in dispute between the parties in Hong Kong and Australia are almost identical. The advantages of litigating in Australia over Hong Kong are apparent on the evidence. All issues may be resolved here. There is nothing vexatious or oppressive about maintaining the proceedings in Australia. There is no discernible advantage that the Respondent would derive by the continuation of the Hong Kong proceedings.
SHOULD AN ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION BE GRANTED?
This Court is satisfied that there is a cross-border dispute on identical issues, as a matter of substance. The relief sought by the Respondent can just as easily, if not more easily, be granted by an Australian Court, as a Hong Kong Court. The same applies as regards the relief sought by the Applicant. Whether the issue is conceptualised as one of variation of the child maintenance order, or its collection, or its discharge, this Court can grant the Applicant and Respondent the relief that they seek. This Court therefore accepts the Applicant’s submission that it would be both oppressive and vexatious for the Respondent to pursue her Hong Kong proceedings in circumstances where the Applicant is using the reciprocal arrangements that exist between Australia and Hong Kong pursuant to the Hague Convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations, to provide an accessible and orderly way for resolving this international dispute. Indeed, granting the anti-suit injunction protects the integrity of that reciprocal arrangement, by keeping the proceedings in this Court: Kent & Kent (2017) FLC 93-792. The order, of course, is an order made in personam against the Respondent. It is not an order directed to the Hong Kong Court. Matters of comity are important, as was recognised by the Full Court in Lan and Hao (No. 2) (2017) FLC 93-795 at 77,557, [84]:
84. Nonetheless, issues of comity are important, as the majority in CSR explained at 395 – 396:
Practice with respect to interlocutory anti-suit injunctions
The cases concerned with injunctions in restraint of proceedings in foreign courts recognise that, although an injunction of that kind operates in personam, it nevertheless interferes with the processes of the foreign court and may well be perceived as a breach of comity by that court. Comity, relevantly, was explained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hilton v Guyot in the following terms:
“‘Comity’, in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.”
For this reason, the cases also emphasise that the power to grant injunctions in restraint of foreign proceedings should be exercised with caution. And that is so whether the injunction is sought in the exercise of the inherent or equitable jurisdiction.
(Emphasis in original)(Citations omitted)
The anti-suit injunction will be granted.
PROGRESSING THIS MATTER
In addition to the anti-suit injunction sought, the Applicant seeks a number of orders in relation to the Respondent granting financial disclosure pursuant to the provisions of the Family Law Rules. The Court is satisfied that such orders are warranted, and necessary to expeditiously determine this matter to its conclusion. The Respondent’s application to dismiss the Application should in itself be dismissed. The question of costs will be reserved to the final hearing.
ORDERS
Orders will be made in terms of those proposed by the Applicant in the minute provided to the Court. The matter will also be listed for mention in anticipation of a final hearing.
I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Altobelli. Associate:
Dated: 14 May 2021
5
4