Vang & Chung (No 5) - [2024] FedCFamC1A 251

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Vang & Chung (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1A 251

Appeal from: Vang & Chung (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 604

Appeal number(s): NAA 259 of 2024

File number(s): SYC 1433 of 2020

Judgment of: JARRETT J

Date of judgment: 20 December 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Where before the primary judge the applicant sought to rely on a previously dismissed Amended Application in a Proceeding and to review a Registrar’s decision – Where proposed grounds of appeal are expressed generally without reference to any particular order – Where there is no basis for any of the proposed grounds of appeal – Where no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave to appeal – Where applicant does not have reasonable prospects of prosecuting the application for leave to appeal – Application for leave to appeal summarily dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 32, 46

Cases cited:
Boman & Boman [2022] FedCFamC1A 55

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

Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692

Number of paragraphs: 89

Date of hearing: 16 December 2024

Place: Brisbane (via video-link)

Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented litigant

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Tabbenor

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Broun Abrahams Burreket

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Mangioni Biggs & Co

ORDERS

NAA259 of 2024
SYC1433 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MS VANG

Applicant

AND:
MR CHUNG

First Respondent

MR D

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Notice of Appeal filed on 8 October 2024 is summarily dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, fixed in the sum of $10,000.

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
JARRETT J:

On 8 October 2024 Ms Vang filed a Notice of Appeal in which she seeks leave to appeal orders made on 10 September 2024 by…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: Vang & Chung (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1A 251
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1A 251
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Family Court was asked to decide an application for leave to appeal from a decision made by a Registrar. Ms Vang, the applicant, sought to rely on a previously dismissed Amended Application in a Proceeding and to review the Registrar’s decision. Mr Chung and Mr D were the respondents. The court was required to determine whether the application should be summarily dismissed under the Family Law Rules.

The legal issues before the court were whether the grounds of appeal were properly formulated and whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of success in prosecuting the appeal. The court noted that the proposed grounds of appeal were expressed generally without reference to any particular order. Further, there was no basis for any of the proposed grounds of appeal and no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave to appeal. The court concluded that the applicant did not have reasonable prospects of prosecuting the application for leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the Notice of Appeal filed on 8 October 2024. The court ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, fixed in the sum of $10,000. This decision was made considering the absence of any reasonable prospects of success and the general nature of the proposed grounds of appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA259 of 2024

SYC1433 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS VANG

Applicant

AND:

MR CHUNG

First Respondent

MR D

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Notice of Appeal filed on 8 October 2024 is summarily dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, fixed in the sum of $10,000.

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.

NAA259 of 2024 SYC1433 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MS VANG Applicant
AND:	MR CHUNG First Respondent MR D Second Respondent

Appeal from:	Vang & Chung (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 604
Appeal number(s):	NAA 259 of 2024
File number(s):	SYC 1433 of 2020
Judgment of:	JARRETT J
Date of judgment:	20 December 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Where before the primary judge the applicant sought to rely on a previously dismissed Amended Application in a Proceeding and to review a Registrar’s decision – Where proposed grounds of appeal are expressed generally without reference to any particular order – Where there is no basis for any of the proposed grounds of appeal – Where no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave to appeal – Where applicant does not have reasonable prospects of prosecuting the application for leave to appeal – Application for leave to appeal summarily dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 32, 46
Cases cited:	Boman & Boman [2022] FedCFamC1A 55 Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101 Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692
Number of paragraphs:	89
Date of hearing:	16 December 2024
Place:	Brisbane (via video-link)
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Self-represented litigant
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms Tabbenor
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Broun Abrahams Burreket
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Mangioni Biggs & Co

ORDER MADE BY:	JARRETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 DECEMBER 2024