FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Shuren & Fang (No 9) [2025] FedCFamC1F 104
File number: MLC 3815 of 2023 Judgment of: STRUM J Date of judgment: 21 February 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING – INJUNCTIONS – Breach of injunction – Enforcement of injunction – Discretion to enforce – Where there were multiple withdrawals of funds by the respondent from his company in breach of injunction in repayment of loans to him and another of his companies – Where respondent asserts prejudice if required to repay funds – Where one withdrawal was in payment of an outstanding taxation debt – Consideration of “the ordinary course of business” – Respondent ordered to repay funds to the company except for the withdrawal applied to reduction of taxation debt. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79A
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 8.14
Cases cited: Collins and Olsthoorn (2005) FLC 93–216; [2005] FamCA 138
Downs Distributing Co Pty Ltd v Associated Blue Star Stores Pty Ltd (in liq) (1948) 76 CLR 463; [1948] HCA 14
Ramsey and Ramsey (1983) FLC 91–301
Re Netherby Hall Pty Ltd (1974) CLC ¶40-110
Robertson v Grigg (1932) 47 CLR 257; [1932] HCA 29
Shuren v Fang (No 7) [2024] FedCFamC1F 716
Taylor v White (1964) 110 CLR 129; [1964] HCA 11
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 42 Date of hearing: 19 February 2025 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Dr Ingleby Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Legal Advisory Centre Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr North SC, assisted by Mr Eley Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ascot Solicitors (Sunbury) Pty Ltd For the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear For the Third Respondent: The Third Respondent did not appear For the Fourth Respondent: The Fourth Respondent did not appear ORDERS
MLC 3815 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS SHUREN
Applicant
AND: MR FANG
First Respondent
B PTY LTD
Second Respondent
C PTY LTD (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
STRUM J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 FEBRUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The husband forthwith repay to National Australia Bank account no. …10 in the name of HH Pty Ltd (“the HH Pty Ltd account”) the sum of $3,000,000 withdrawn by him from that account on 17 January 2025.
2.The husband forthwith repay or cause Z Pty Ltd to repay to the HH Pty Ltd account the sum of $100,000 transferred by him or caused by him to be transferred from that account to Z Pty Ltd on 30 January 2025.
3.The husband forthwith cause Z Pty Ltd to pay to the Australian Taxation Office, in full, the sum of $1,300,000 transferred by him or caused by him to be transferred from the HH Pty Ltd account to Z Pty Ltd on 17 January 2025.
4.The husband be and is hereby restrained from…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Shuren & Fang (No 9) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC1F 104
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the respondent could be ordered to repay funds that he had withdrawn from the company's account in breach of the court's injunction. A further issue was whether the respondent's assertion of prejudice if required to repay the funds could be considered in determining whether to enforce the injunction. The court had to consider whether certain withdrawals were in the ordinary course of business and whether one withdrawal had been made in good faith to pay an outstanding tax debt.
Strum J found that the respondent had indeed breached the injunction by making multiple withdrawals from the company's account. The court noted that while the respondent claimed prejudice if required to repay the funds, this did not outweigh the need to enforce the injunction to prevent dissipation of marital assets. The court also considered the respondent's argument that one withdrawal was made in good faith to pay a tax debt, but found that this did not excuse the breach of the injunction. The court ordered the respondent to repay certain sums to the company's account, except for the withdrawal applied to the tax debt. The court further restrained the respondent from dealing with the specified funds other than in accordance with the earlier court orders.
The court made specific orders for the respondent to repay certain sums to the company's account and restrained him from dealing with the specified funds other than in accordance with the earlier court orders. The application was otherwise dismissed, with costs reserved for determination after the s 79 threshold issue was decided.
Orders
Orders of the court
MLC 3815 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MS SHUREN
Applicant
AND:
MR FANG
First Respondent
B PTY LTD
Second Respondent
C PTY LTD (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
STRUM J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 FEBRUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The husband forthwith repay to National Australia Bank account no. …10 in the name of HH Pty Ltd (“the HH Pty Ltd account”) the sum of $3,000,000 withdrawn by him from that account on 17 January 2025.
2. The husband forthwith repay or cause Z Pty Ltd to repay to the HH Pty Ltd account the sum of $100,000 transferred by him or caused by him to be transferred from that account to Z Pty Ltd on 30 January 2025.
3. The husband forthwith cause Z Pty Ltd to pay to the Australian Taxation Office, in full, the sum of $1,300,000 transferred by him or caused by him to be transferred from the HH Pty Ltd account to Z Pty Ltd on 17 January 2025.
4. The husband be and is hereby restrained from howsoever dealing with the funds referred to in orders 1 and 2 hereof, together with the balance of the sum of $5,600,000 deposited by the QQ Group into the HH Pty Ltd account on 16 January 2025, other than the funds referred to in order 3 hereof, save strictly in accordance with order 4(a) of the orders made on 14 June 2024, as amended by paragraph 5 of the orders made on 14 October 2024.
5. The Application in a Proceeding filed by the wife on 12 February 2025 and the Response to Application in a Proceeding filed by the husband on 18 February 2025 be otherwise dismissed, save as to costs.
6. The costs of the Applicant Wife and Respondent Husband of and incidental to the said Application in a Proceeding and the Response to the Application in Proceeding be reserved to after the determination of the s 79 threshold issue (listed for trial on 18 August 2025).
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
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.