Vang & Chung (No 11)
[2025] FedCFamC1F 224
•5 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Vang & Chung (No 11) [2025] FedCFamC1F 224
File number: SYC 1433 of 2020 Judgment of: CHRISTIE J Date of judgment: 5 March 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - interim hearing - self represented litigants- Where a respondent party to proceedings makes an application that the self-represented applicant have access to subpoenaed documents on conditions - Where injunction is sought to prevent self-represented applicant from disclosing certain information contained within the documents - Where past behaviour of applicant indicates that there is a risk unsupervised access to documents would be improperly used - Applicant permitted to view the documents in supervised setting only. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 24 Date of hearing: 5 March 2025 Place: Sydney Applicant: Litigant in Person Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Tabbernor Solicitor for the First Respondent: Broun Abrahams Burreket Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr Sulan SC with Mr Rogan Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Mangioni Biggs + Co ORDERS
SYC 1433 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR D
Applicant
AND: MS VANG
First Respondent
MR CHUNG
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.In relation to the document annexed and marked as Confidential “Annexure A” to the affidavit of Ms AH affirmed 13 February 2025:
(a)Physical copies of “Annexure A” be provided to the Exhibits office of the Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (Sydney Registry) and the first respondent Mr Chung but not to the applicant Ms Vang provided that the applicant Ms Vang be permitted to view but not take a copy or photograph of confidential “Annexure A” but be permitted to inspect in the presence:
(i)A person engaged by the second respondent’s law firm to supervise inspection; or
(ii)Ms Vang’s Australian legal representative if she is legally represented.
2.The applicant Ms Vang be restrained from disclosing in any manner other than in the normal course of these proceedings and in the normal course of her seeking and obtaining legal advice relating to these proceedings, any or all of the contents and information of any document produced to the Court in response to a subpoena, and any document produced by the second respondent as disclosure in these proceedings.
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.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Vang & Chung has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CHRISTIE J:
The primary proceedings concern financial adjustment between the husband Mr Chung (“the husband”) and the wife Ms Vang (“the wife”). The second respondent is the husband’s father (“Mr D”).
The matter is listed for final hearing before me commencing 17 March 2025. It is necessary to determine some interim applications and address case management issues.
The second respondent filed an Application in a Proceeding relating to discovery. In summary the application seeks that certain discovery documents be provided to the Court only (and not the wife) or in the alternative that the wife have access to those documents through a legal representative or if unrepresented in a supervised setting. It seeks an injunction preventing the wife from disclosing information contained in any documents save for the purpose of legal advice.
These are interlocutory proceedings so the evidence is untested. However, in the main the second respondent relies on emails which the wife has written to support his case that the wife may misuse information obtained in these proceedings.
The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) contains the following provisions:
114Q Indictable offence—communication to the public of account of proceedings that identifies parties or others involved in proceedings
(1) A person commits an indictable offence if:
(a) the person communicates to the public an account of proceedings under this Act; and
(b) the account identifies:
(i) a party to the proceedings; or
(ii) a witness in the proceedings; or
(iii) a person who is related to, or is associated with, a party to the proceedings; or
(iv) a person who is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the communication is:
(a) in accordance with a direction of a court; or
(b) otherwise approved by a court.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), an account of proceedings is taken to identify a person if the account includes material that is sufficient to identify the person to a member of the public. Examples of such material might include the following:
(a) a picture, recording, or physical description of the person;
(b) a name or title that identifies the person;
(c) an address or location where the person resides or works;
(d) details of the person’s employment, paid or voluntary;
(e) the relationship or other connection between the person and an identified person or business;
(f) the person’s political, philosophical or religious beliefs;
(g) any real or personal property associated with the person.
Note: Paragraphs (a) to (g) are examples of material that might be sufficient to identify a person to a member of the public. The examples are not exhaustive (see section 15AD of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901) and might not be sufficient to identify a person in every circumstance.
114S When a communication is not a communication to the public
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 114Q(1)(a) and subsection 114R(1), a communication to a person or body is not a communication to the public if:
(a) the person or body has a significant and legitimate interest in the subject matter of the communication; and
(b) that interest is substantially greater than, or different from, the interests of members of the public generally.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), none of the following is a communication to the public:
(a) a private communication between a party to proceedings and one or more persons who are members of the party’s family or friends of the party;
(b) a communication of a pleading, transcript of evidence, or other document for use in connection with any of the following proceedings, to a person concerned in those proceedings:
(i) proceedings in a court;
(ii) proceedings before an officer of a court investigating or dealing with a matter in accordance with this Act, the regulations or the applicable Rules of Court;
(iii) proceedings in a tribunal established by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;
(c) a communication of a pleading, transcript of evidence, or other document, to a prescribed authority of a State or Territory that has responsibilities relating to the welfare of children;
(d) a communication of a pleading, transcript of evidence, or other document, to:
(i) a body that is responsible for disciplining members of a profession in a State or Territory; or
(ii) a person concerned in disciplinary proceedings against a member of a profession in a State or Territory (being proceedings before a body that is responsible for disciplining members of that profession in that State or Territory);
(e) a communication of a pleading, transcript of evidence, or other document, to a body that grants assistance by way of legal aid for the purpose of facilitating a decision as to whether assistance by way of legal aid should be granted, continued or provided in a particular case;
(f) a communication of material intended primarily for use by the members of any profession (being part of a series of law reports or any other publication of a technical character);
(g) a communication of an account of proceedings to a member of a profession in connection with:
(i) the person’s practice of that profession; or
(ii) any form of professional training in which that person is involved;
(h) a communication of an account of proceedings to a student in connection with the student’s studies.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (“the Rules”) contain the following provisions:
6.04 Use of documents
(1) A person who inspects or copies a document, in relation to a proceeding, under these Rules or an order:
(a) must use the document for the purpose of the proceeding only; and
(b) must not otherwise disclose the contents of the document, or give a copy of it, to any other person without the court’s permission.
(2) However:
(a) a solicitor may disclose the contents of the document or give a copy of the document to the solicitor’s client or counsel; and
(b) a client may disclose the contents of the document or give a copy of the document to the client’s solicitor or counsel; and
(c) this rule does not affect the right of a party to use a document or to disclose its contents if that party has a common interest in the document with the party who has possession or control of the document.
6.36 Use of documents produced in compliance with subpoena for production
(1) This Division:
(a) applies to a subpoena for production; and
(b) does not apply to a subpoena for production and to give evidence.
(2) A person who inspects or copies a document under these Rules or an order:
(a) must use the document only for the purpose of the proceedings; and
(b) must not otherwise disclose the contents of the document, or give a copy of it, to any other person without the court’s permission.
(3) However:
(a) a solicitor may disclose the contents or give a copy of the document to the solicitor’s client or counsel; and
(b) a client may disclose the contents or give a copy of the document to the client’s solicitor or counsel; and
(c) nothing in this rule prevents a client or a client’s solicitor from providing a document to an expert for the purpose of the proceeding as permitted by Chapter 7.
The second respondent says on 14 January 2019 the wife wrote to the husband and said “the New York Times will definitely get involved starting with that property of yours”.
On 6 April 2019 the wife wrote an email to the husband which said in part “the overseas asset recovery department will definitely receive all the asset information you provide. I will also disclose my investigation result from [Country AB]”.
On 23 June 2019 the wife wrote to the husband by email including:
… I will definitely disclose everything about [Mr D]’s family. As long as he has evenly laundered the money across state-owned assets and the stock market without leaving any evidence behind, then he will be fine. The continuation of our marriage is crucial for investigating your family’s financial case…. I am also considering whether to report your family’s money laundering to the Australian government. I want to see how people in the [AJ Organisation] handle a case like this. Someone is particularly curious and wants me to take them to see your family’s old house. Please think carefully and have your lawyer formally send the legal documents to my lawyer so they can start preparing.
On 7 July 2019 the wife wrote to the husband “If I can’t get justice in [Country YY], then we will have to disclose everything through international media”.
On 15 July 2019 the wife wrote to the husband “I know your father is going to have a court trial, some one told me if I hand out your asset information, your father’s case will be re-trial”.
On 27 August 2019 the wife wrote to the husband “I just filmed another video and sent it overseas. Keep an eye on YouTube in the coming days. You make me really angry.”
On 29 August 2019 the wife wrote an email to the husband in which she indicated that she may be “forced to disclose everything or provide information about your family to the Five Eyes and ICIJ for further investigation…”
On 5 May 2020 the wife wrote to the husband “But you have no idea how many people are there expecting me to disclouse [sic] all your information overseas.”
On 22 July 2020 the wife made another threat via email to the husband to disclose matters to the media arising from the proceedings.
The matter was before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2 on 29 September 2020. The second respondent has obtained a transcript of that particular occasion. The wife indicated to the Court that she wanted to tell the media her story, wanted to release information to the media, “But I will not reveal any of the personal information of my ex-husband”.
Following the appearance on 29 September 2020 Judge Morley made an order restraining the wife:
That the applicant wife is restrained from disclosing in any manner other than in the normal course of these proceedings and in the normal course of her seeking and obtaining legal advice relating to these proceedings any or all of the content of any documents produced to the court in response to a subpoena and any document produced by the husband to the wife is disclosure in these proceedings.
The second respondent relies on the past threats and the suggestion that comments made by the wife in written submissions demonstrate a lack of respect for the Court and its judicial officers.
Paragraph 34 of those submissions, which is relied upon by the second respondent says:
A further unique aspect of this case is that AI records confirm that the husband and his father’s […] company was purchased from judicial figures and Australian politicians. One of these politicians has a close political alliance with the two judges who have significantly influenced the direction of this case Judge Harper and DCJ (deputy chief Justice) before becoming a judge. DCJ had a long political career and in 2011 served as Australia’s Attorney General when the husband [Y Company] pushes assets from this judicial figure.
CONSIDERATION
My task is to balance two competing interests, on the one hand the right of a party to proceedings to have access to any and all documents relevant to the determination of those proceedings and on the other hand the evidence which suggests that information may be misused country to the provisions of the Act.
As I read the evidence to date the emails relate to threats to use documents but do not provide concrete evidence that documents have been provided.
The comments in the wife’s written submissions made recently suggest that there is merit in the suggestion that the wife does not trust the legal process.
I am satisfied that the applicant has established that there is a more than theoretical risk that the wife will use documents obtained through discovery for purposes separate from the legal proceedings before this Court and accordingly propose to make orders governing disclosure, inspection and injunctions in line with the obligations which exist at law.
I am not satisfied that it would be procedurally fair to deny the wife access to documents which the Court has access. Accordingly, I propose to make orders in line with those discussed with counsel being the alternate proposal of the second respondent.
I certify that the preceding twenty-four (24) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Christie. Associate:
Dated: 11 April 2025
0
0
2