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
- AGLC
- Vu & Ton (No 2) [2021] FedCFamC1F 324
- Case
- [2021] FedCFamC1F 324
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
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.