Wei & Wei

This case involved a dispute between Mr and Mrs Wei concerning property settlement and child-related matters. The Wife sought orders for the child to reside with her, for the Father to have no contact with the child, and for her to receive 80% of the net matrimonial assets. The Husband initially sought equal time with the child and an equal division of property, but later indicated a willingness to accept supervised contact. The Court was assisted by an Independent Children’s Lawyer, who recommended no contact between the child and the Father.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether there should be any contact between the Father and the child, and how the parties' property should be divided. In relation to the child, the Court had to determine the appropriate orders for residence, care, responsibility, and contact, considering the child's best interests. Regarding property, the Court was required to assess the contributions of each party, both financial and non-financial, and consider relevant statutory factors to achieve a just and equitable distribution of the matrimonial assets.

The Court's reasoning regarding the child's contact with the Father was heavily influenced by the Husband's past conduct, including his failure to comply with court orders for the child's return from Malaysia, his attempts to mislead the Court, and evidence suggesting paranoid traits and a lack of insight into the impact of his actions on the child. Expert evidence from a consultant psychiatrist and a family consultant raised significant concerns about the Husband's emotional state, controlling behaviour, and the potential risk of abduction. Consequently, the Court found that any contact between the Father and the child would likely cause fear and apprehension to the Wife and potentially distress to the child, and therefore ordered no contact. In relation to property settlement, the Court considered the parties' financial and non-financial contributions, noting the Husband's significant cash injection into the former matrimonial home and purchase of a motor vehicle. However, it also took into account the Wife's post-separation contributions, her sole care of the child without financial support from the Husband, and her future needs.

Ultimately, the Court ordered that the child reside with the Mother and that the Father have no contact. The former matrimonial home was to be sold, with the net proceeds to be divided, resulting in an asset distribution of 60% in favour of the Wife and 40% in favour of the Husband, after adjustments for superannuation and other assets. The Court also made orders restraining the Father from applying for a passport for the child or removing the child from Australia, and placed the child's name on the Airport Watch list. The Court noted that final orders would issue after the issue of costs was determined.