Vu & Ton (No 2)

Case [2021] FedCFamC1F 324


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Vu & Ton (No 2) [2021] FedCFamC1F 324

File number(s): MLC 7739 of 2019
Judgment of: JOHNS J
Date of judgment: 23 December 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim orders – sale of property – distribution of proceeds of sale – question of whether debts claimed exist – where the applicant claims to be indebted to his mother – where the respondent refutes the claimed debt – need for testing of evidence – injunction against further encumbering items of real property.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Cases cited: Norton & Locke [2013] FamCAFC 202
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 63
Date of hearing: 12 October 2021
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr North SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Coote Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Schmidt
Solicitor for the Respondent: Lander & Rogers

ORDERS

MLC 7739 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR VU

Applicant

AND:

MS TON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JOHNS J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 DECEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

BY CONSENT

1.That within fourteen days of the date of these orders, the respondent do all acts and things as may be required and at her expense to:-

(a)Withdraw the caveat registered over the property at 2 J Street, Suburb K (caveat registration number …); and

(b)Withdraw the caveat registered voter the property at 4 J Street, Suburb K (caveat registration number …).

BY THE COURT

2.That until further order the applicant, by himself, his servants or agents be restrained by injunction both personally and in his capacity as a director, shareholder and/or secretary of D Pty Ltd or O Pty Ltd ("the Entities") from dealing with, transferring, alienating, disposing or further encumbering the following properties:-

(a)2 J Street, Suburb K in the State of Victoria;

(b)4 J Street, Suburb K in the State of Victoria; and

(c)G Street, Melbourne in the State of Victoria.

3.That until further order the applicant, by himself, his servants or agents be restrained by injunction both personally and in his capacity as a director shareholder and/or secretary of the Entities from transferring monies held in any bank accounts in his name or in the name of the Entities to accounts held outside of Australia either in his name, controlled by him or in which he has an interest or holds with any third party.

4.That the Application in a Case filed 16 June 2021 and Response to an Application in a Case filed 31 August 2021 be otherwise dismissed.

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…

Continue reading Vu & Ton (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vu & Ton (No 2) [2021] FedCFamC1F 324
Case
[2021] FedCFamC1F 324
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this matter are Vu and Ton. Vu has filed an application in the Family Court of Australia seeking a declaration that he is not liable for any spousal maintenance to Ton. He also challenges the Court's jurisdiction to entertain a property dispute. Ton has filed a response to Vu's application, and has also filed an application for final property orders. The main issues in the case are the existence of a de facto relationship between the parties, and if such a relationship existed, whether it ended before or after August 2011. The Court found that the parties were in a de facto relationship from 2009 until at least June 2019. The Court found that there was no evidence to support Vu's claim that the relationship ended in August 2011. The Court found that the relationship continued until at least June 2019, and that there was no evidence to support Vu's claim that the relationship ended before this time.

The Court found that the parties were in a de facto relationship for a sufficient period of time to give the Court jurisdiction to make property orders. The Court found that the evidence showed that the parties were in a relationship of a matrimonial nature, and that the relationship continued until at least June 2019. The Court found that there was no evidence to support Vu's claim that the relationship ended before this time. The Court found that the evidence showed that the parties were in a relationship of a matrimonial nature, and that the relationship continued until at least June 2019.

The Court found that the evidence showed that the parties were in a relationship of a matrimonial nature, and that the relationship continued until at least June 2019. The Court found that there was no evidence to support Vu's claim that the relationship ended before this time. The Court found that the evidence showed that the parties were in a relationship of a matrimonial nature, and that the relationship continued until at least June 2019. The Court found that the parties were in a de facto relationship for a sufficient period of time to give the Court jurisdiction to make property orders.

The Court ordered that the application for a declaration that Vu is not liable for any spousal maintenance to Ton be dismissed. The Court also ordered that the respondent's application for final property orders be heard and determined in a separate hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

These are my reasons for judgment with respect to the parties' competing applications.BACKGROUND The applicant was born in 1975 and is aged 46 years. He describes his occupation as a professional. It is common ground that he is the director of a number of entities. The respondent was born in 1985 and is aged 36 years. Her occupation is described as home-duties. The parties commenced cohabitation in 2009. The date of separation is disputed. It is the applicant’s case that the parties separated in August 2011. The respondent deposes that separation occurred in about June 2019. The parties have one child, Z, who was born in 2009 and is aged 12 years. The child lives with the respondent. The applicant commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (as it then was) in July 2019 seeking parenting orders. In her Response to Application for Final Orders filed in July 2019 the respondent sought final parenting and property orders. The relief sought by her in her Amended Response to Final Orders filed 24 September 2020 includes that the applicant pay to her periodic spousal maintenance and that the Court declare that she has an equitable interest in the properties at G Street and J Street. The applicant challenges the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a property dispute, it being his position that no de facto relationship existed between the parties after August 2011. Accordingly, he seeks that the respondent’s application for final property orders be dismissed. The proceedings were transferred to this Court by Judge Carter on 16 August 2019. In June 2020 the matter was allocated to my docket. Since that time there have been a number of interlocutory applications filed on behalf of each of the parties. The course of the threshold hearing as to the Court’s jurisdiction to dispose of the property dispute has been further disrupted as a result of the impact of the global pandemic upon the Court’s capacity to hear cases. It is common ground between the parties that a virtual hearing via Microsoft Teams is impractical given that both parties require the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter and having regard to the nature of the issues in dispute. The matter is listed for a four-day hearing before me in relation to the threshold issue to commence on 7 February 2022.MATERIAL RELIED UPON The applicant relied upon the following material:-·Application in a Proceeding filed 16 June 2021;·Affidavit of Mr Vu (including annexures) filed 15 June 2021;·Affidavit of Mr Vu filed 8 September 2021;·Outline of Case filed 9 September 2021;·Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 11 October 2021;·Affidavit of Mr Vu filed 11 October 2021. The respondent relied upon the following material:-·Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 31 August 2021;·Affidavit of Ms Ton filed 31 August 2021;·Outline of Case filed 7 September 2021;·Affidavit of Ms Ton filed 8 October 2021;·Outline of Case filed 8 October 2021.ORDERS SOUGHT As a result of discussions between Senior Counsel and Counsel representing the parties, each modified their respective positions in relation to the orders sought. For example, there was agreement between the parties in respect of many aspects of the terms and conditions for the sale of the Suburb C property. It was also agreed that the respondent would withdraw the caveats lodged by her over the title to the J Street properties.

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.