Vang & Chung (No 3)

In the case of Vang & Chung (No 3), Ms Vang, the applicant, sought leave to appeal the interlocutory orders made by the primary judge and to adduce further evidence in the appeal. The primary judge had dismissed Ms Vang’s application for spousal maintenance and other interim orders, finding that there was no jurisdiction in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) to entertain the application. Ms Vang further sought to challenge the primary judge’s rulings on issues such as bias, procedural fairness, and the weight given to evidence. The court was required to determine whether Ms Vang had satisfied the conjunctive test for leave to appeal, whether the proposed further evidence met the criteria under s 35(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, and the merits of the grounds of appeal.

The court found that the conjunctive test for leave to appeal, as outlined in Medlow & Medlow, was not satisfied because Ms Vang had not demonstrated that the appeal had prospects of success or that there was some other compelling reason for allowing the appeal. The proposed further evidence did not demonstrate an error or provide new material for re-exercising the discretion of the court. The court also found all grounds of appeal to be without merit, including the claims of bias, procedural unfairness, and improper consideration of evidence. Additionally, the court considered the jurisdictional issue and concluded that the primary judge’s finding on jurisdiction was correct. The appeals were dismissed, and Ms Vang was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

The dismissal of the appeals and the denial of leave to appeal resulted in a final order that Ms Vang pay the costs of the first respondent in the sum of $15,000 and the costs of the second respondent in the sum of $7,500. The court's reasons for judgment were detailed, reflecting the complexity of the issues and the extensive submissions made by the parties.