Vang & Chung (No 4) - [2024] FedCFamC1F 390

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Vang & Chung (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 390

File number: SYC 1433 of 2020

Judgment of: HARPER J

Date of judgment: 6 June 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a Proceeding – Where the wife seeks leave to file an Application in a Proceeding – Where formal application is required from de wife – Where appeal is in relation to routine procedural orders – Where appeal has no reasonable prospects of success.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 46, 67, 69

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) r 1.31 and r 5.13

Cases cited:
Darley (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1A 112

Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 14

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers in chambers

The Applicant: Litigant in person

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Broun Abrahams Burreket

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Did not participate
ORDERS

SYC 1433 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS VANG

Applicant

AND:
MR CHUNG

First Respondent

MR D

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JUNE 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be refused to bring the Application in a Proceeding filed by the Applicant Wife on 8 April 2024.

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 the pseudonym Vang & Chung has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARPER J:

These are property proceedings under Pt VIII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) between the applicant wife, Ms Vang (“the wife”), the first respondent husband, Mr Chung (“the husband”), and the second respondent who is the father of the husband, Mr D.
Much of the relevant background is set out in my earlier decision in Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101 (“Vang (No 3)”), delivered on 28 February 2024. It is unnecessary to repeat the background for the purposes of this judgment. Vang (No 3) dismissed the wife’s Application in a Proceeding seeking leave to institute spouse maintenance proceedings out of time, an interim property adjustment and litigation…

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 Vang & Chung (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Vang & Chung (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 390
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1F 390
Decision Date: 6 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vang & Chung (No 4) involves the applicant, Ms Vang, seeking leave to file an application in a proceeding against Mr Chung, the first respondent, and Mr D, the second respondent. The application relates to routine procedural orders within a family law context. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was tasked with determining whether Ms Vang should be granted leave to proceed with her application. The central legal issue before the court was whether Ms Vang’s application met the criteria for leave to file under Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975, particularly considering the procedural requirements and the likelihood of success.

The court considered the procedural requirements for leave to file an application in a proceeding, which mandates a formal application by the wife in family law matters. It assessed whether Ms Vang's application was properly formulated and met the necessary legal standards. The court also evaluated the merits of the application, focusing on whether the appeal had reasonable prospects of success. The analysis included an examination of the substantive legal arguments and the procedural fairness of the application. Ultimately, the court found that the application did not meet the criteria for leave to proceed, as it lacked sufficient grounds and had no reasonable prospects of success.

Harper J concluded that leave should be refused to Ms Vang to bring her application in a proceeding. The court’s reasoning emphasized the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements and the importance of evaluating the substantive merits of the application. The refusal of leave was based on the lack of reasonable prospects of success and the procedural shortcomings of the application. Consequently, the court ordered that leave be refused to Ms Vang to bring the application in a proceeding filed on 8 April 2024. This decision reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that applications in family law proceedings are both procedurally and substantively robust.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 1433 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS VANG

Applicant

AND:

MR CHUNG

First Respondent

MR D

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JUNE 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave be refused to bring the Application in a Proceeding filed by the Applicant Wife on 8 April 2024.

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.

File number:	SYC 1433 of 2020
Judgment of:	HARPER J
Date of judgment:	6 June 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a Proceeding – Where the wife seeks leave to file an Application in a Proceeding – Where formal application is required from de wife – Where appeal is in relation to routine procedural orders – Where appeal has no reasonable prospects of success.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 46, 67, 69 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) r 1.31 and r 5.13
Cases cited:	Darley (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1A 112 Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	14
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers in chambers
The Applicant:	Litigant in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Broun Abrahams Burreket
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Did not participate

SYC 1433 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS VANG Applicant
AND:	MR CHUNG First Respondent MR D Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	HARPER J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 JUNE 2024