TIAO -v- LAI [No 2] [2010] WASCA 189 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WASCA 189 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:64/2009	Heard:	19 APRIL 2010 & 18 OCTOBER 2010
Coram:	OWEN JA BUSS JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	23/09/10
Supplementary Delivered:	3/12/10
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CHENG CHIH TIAO HUI PIN WANG LEVEL HOLDINGS PTY LTD SHENG CHIN LAI AUSTRALIAN CHINESE CONFUCIUS-MENCIUS SAINT TAO CENTRE INC
Catchwords:	Orders to be made upon appeals being allowed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Tiao v Lai [No 2] [2010] WASCA 189

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : TIAO -v- LAI [No 2] [2010] WASCA 189 (S) CORAM : OWEN JA

BUSS JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 19 APRIL 2010 & 18 OCTOBER 2010 DELIVERED : 23 SEPTEMBER 2010 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 3 DECEMBER 2010 FILE NO/S : CACV 64 of 2009 BETWEEN : CHENG CHIH TIAO

HUI PIN WANG

First Appellants

LEVEL HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Second Appellant

AND

SHENG CHIN LAI

First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN CHINESE CONFUCIUS-MENCIUS SAINT TAO CENTRE INC

Second Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : JOHNSON J

Citation : LAI -v- TIAO [No 2] [2009] WASC 22

File No : CIV 1442 of 2005

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : JOHNSON J

Citation : LAI -v- TIAO [No 2] [2009] WASC 22 (S)

File No : CIV 1442 of 2005

Catchwords:

Orders to be made upon appeals being allowed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellants : Mr B D Campbell

Second Appellant : Mr M C Hotchkin

First Respondent : Mr M D Howard SC

Second Respondent : Mr J Yong

(Page 3)

Solicitors:

First Appellants : Mony de Kerloy

Second Appellant : Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers

First Respondent : Tan & Tan Lawyers

Second Respondent : Lex Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Tiao v Lai [No 2] [2010] WASCA 189

(Page 4)

1 OWEN JA: I agree with Buss JA.

2 BUSS JA: On 23 September 2010, this court published its reasons for allowing the appeal by the first appellants (Mr Tiao and Mr Hui Wang) and the appeal by the second appellant (Level Holdings). See Tiao v Lai [No 2] [2010] WASCA 189.

3 Also, on 23 September 2010, programming orders were made for the filing and serving of written submissions as to the orders that should be made, in addition to allowing the appeals. Written submissions were then filed and served on behalf of Mr Tiao and Mr Hui Wang, Level Holdings and the first respondent (Mr Lai), but not on behalf of the second respondent (the Association). On 18 October 2010, counsel for each of Mr Tiao and Mr Hui Wang, Level Holdings and Mr Lai…

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 Tiao v Lai [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Tiao v Lai [No 2] [2010] WASCA 189 (S)
Case: [2010] WASCA 189 (S)
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the appellant, Tiao, against the decision of Lai, the respondent. The appeal related to the orders made by Lai in respect of the parties' property settlement following their divorce. The case was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The appellant challenged the distribution of property as well as the spousal maintenance awarded to the respondent. The court was required to determine whether the orders made by Lai were appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues before the court included whether Lai had correctly exercised his discretion in making the orders, whether the distribution of property was fair and reasonable, and whether the spousal maintenance awarded was appropriate. The court was also required to consider whether there were any errors in Lai's assessment of the evidence or in his application of the relevant legal principles. In considering these issues, the court had to carefully examine the evidence presented and the principles applicable to the case.

The court found that Lai had exercised his discretion appropriately in making the orders. The court held that the distribution of property was fair and reasonable, and that the spousal maintenance awarded was appropriate. The court also found that Lai had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, and the orders made by Lai were upheld. The court noted that each case turns on its own facts and that the orders made in this case were appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made

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.