Vang & Chung (No 5)
[2024] FedCFamC1F 432
•18 June 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Vang & Chung (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 432
File number: SYC 1433 of 2020 Judgment of: HARPER J Date of judgment: 18 June 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a Proceeding – Where the Second Respondent seeks to be restrained from dealing with half of the sale proceeds from the sale of property – Where orders are made in accordance with the Application in a Proceeding – Where the wife seeks numerous additional orders in her Response – Where the wife is required to seek leave to file any interim applications – Where no leave is sought – Where the wife’s Response is dismissed. Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 50 Cases cited: Joubert & Verhoeven [2020] FamCA 53
Massalski v Riley (2022) 65 Fam LR 73; [2022] FedCFamC1F 36
Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 13 Date of hearing: 18 June 2024 Place: Sydney The Applicant: Litigant in person Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Burreket of Broun Abrahams Burreket Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Mr Zhu of Mangioni Biggs & Co 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:
18 JUNE 2024
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The sale of the property known as E Street, Suburb F NSW has completed and as a result, net proceeds of the sale of the property in the amount of $13,866,292.17 (“sale proceeds”) are held in the trust account of the solicitors for the Second Respondent.
B.By Order 2(e) of the orders made on 14 November 2023, no restrictions apply to 50% of the balance of the sale proceeds.
C.By Order 3 made on 14 November 2023, the orders made by the Court do not restrict the Second Respondent from dealing with the remaining 50% of the balance of the sale proceeds following 4.00 am on 22 January 2024.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Second Respondent is not to further deal with 50% of the balance of the sale proceeds of the property, being the amount of $6,933,146.09 pending either of the determination of Appeal numbers NAA69/2024 and NAA70/2024; or 4.00 pm on 25 June 2024.
2.Leave for the wife to file and serve her response to the Application in a Proceeding is refused.
3.The Application in a Proceeding filed by the Second Respondent on 30 May 2024 is otherwise dismissed.
4. Costs are reserved.
THE COURT ORDERS IN CHAMBERS THAT:
5. The proceedings are listed in a callover at 10.00 am on 5 September 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).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARPER J:
These are property proceedings brought by the applicant wife (“wife”) against the respondent husband (“husband”). The second respondent is the father of the husband.
Interlocutory orders were made by me on 28 February 2024 accompanied by lengthy reasons which I delivered the same day, which are published as Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101 (“Vang & Chung (No 3)”).
In Vang & Chung (No 3), I considered the wife’s Application in a Proceeding for interim property adjustment, litigation funding and issues of this Court’s jurisdiction arising by reason of s 50 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).
It is unnecessary for the purposes of this ex-tempore judgment to set out in any detail the background which is covered relevantly in Vang & Chung (No 3). It is however relevant to note that the parties commenced cohabitation in 2015, were married in 2017 and separated on 31 August 2018.
By reason of earlier orders made in these proceedings, the considerable number of interim applications brought by the wife have resulted in an order that she requires leave to file any further interlocutory applications.
Before me today is an Amended Application in a Proceeding filed by the second respondent on 30 May 2024. By that Application, he seeks an order restraining him from dealing with 50 per cent of the balance of proceeds of the sale of E Street Suburb F (“Suburb F”). The proposed order is propounded in light of three notations.
The wife has filed two appeals against orders made by me which are listed for hearing on 25 June 2024.
The second respondent’s application was listed urgently before me on 18 June 2024. On the night of 17 June 2024, the wife filed a response which seeks a range of orders about disclosure, recusal for apprehended bias and a stay of orders made by me on 14 November 2023. At least one of those orders appears to be similar to the order sought by the second respondent.
The wife’s response is supported by affidavit material which it is difficult to decipher at a number of points. However the reasons delivered in Vang & Chung (No 3) deal in considerable detail with the financial resources of the contending parties. Additionally, as pointed out by the husband, the prospects of the wife achieving an outcome at final hearing after such a short relationship in excess of the half proceeds of sale of Suburb F (which are currently restrained) is extremely remote.
Accordingly, having considered the material filed overnight and in light of the overarching purpose which requires the Court to consider the other contending claims on the Court’s resources by other litigants, together with the apparent attempt by the wife to thrash the water to foam yet again on the same issues which have been the subject of earlier interlocutory determination, I am not persuaded that the wife’s response should be permitted to progress any further.
The interest in finality in litigation apply to interlocutory applications as well as to final hearings (Joubert & Verhoeven [2020] FamCA 53 at [30]–[32]; Massalski v Riley (2022) 65 Fam LR 73 at [146]).
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that it is in the interests of the parties for there to be any further hearing of the wife’s response, and it was clear from the submissions made to me on 18 June 2024 that the order proposed by the second respondent could be made by consent.
Accordingly, I will refuse leave to the wife to file her response to the second respondent’s Application in a Proceeding.
I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Harper delivered on 18 June 2024. Associate:
Dated: 1 July 2024
0
2
1