Wei and Bing

[2014] FamCA 605

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WEI & BING [2014] FamCA 605

FAMILY LAW – Injunctions – Asset protection orders.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Wei

RESPONDENT: Ms Bing

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4927 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 10 June 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 10 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Dickson QC with Mr Matta

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Berry Family Law

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Szabo

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Macpherson & Kelley Lawyers Pty Ltd

Orders

1. That there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the applicant engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

3. That the costs of both parties of this day are reserved.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

1. That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel, including senior counsel to attend.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Wei & Bing has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4927 of 2014

Mr Wei

Applicant

And

Ms Bing

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application brought on urgently seeking injunctive relief.  The parties are people who live in both Country B and Australia and have substantial assets.  The evidence is very complicated but, simply put, there is $100 million floating around somewhere in Australia, some of which went into the acquisition of a sports facility, which is owned by a company currently in receivership.  The behaviour of the husband and wife is what seems to have triggered the injunctive application and, more concern is the particularly, the behaviour of the wife.  The wife opposes the orders being made but, bearing in mind the amount of time since the application was filed, has not had a chance to formally respond. 

2. The husband is, to some extent, simply acting on the basis of advice he has received from not only one of the directors of the company trying to get the sports facility back up on its feet again but also solicitors acting as well. 

3. This is about the use of the court’s asset protection power.  That power does not seem to be in dispute.  I propose in the circumstances to make the orders in terms of the minutes, adjourning the matter to 2 July 2014 at 10 am.  These orders are fairly restrictive but there are allegations of forgery of documents, substantial amounts of money being moved around within company accounts and the creation of other company accounts in circumstances where one party seems to be acting unilaterally.  That is a sufficient basis, in my view, to make the orders of an injunctive nature to protect the assets of the parties.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 10 June 2014.

Associate:  

Date:  25 July 2014