Weng and Wah and Ors

Case [2019] FamCAFC 242

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WENG & WAH AND ORS [2019] FamCAFC 242
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SECURITY FOR COSTS – Where the wife and adult son seek security for costs from the husband in the amount of $19,857 each – Where their application was, originally, for $70,000 and $60,000 respectively – Where the trial judge made serious findings as to all parties’ lack of disclosure and failure to comply with Court orders at first instance – Where neither the wife nor the son attempted to redress these failures to any extent for the purpose of bringing these applications – Where such failure demonstrates a lack of bona fides on the part of these applicants – Where the current grounds of appeal are to be the subject of amendment – Where, on the grounds as currently stated, the appeal lacks merit – Where orders for security for costs of an appeal are appropriately reserved for the most obvious of cases – Where this is not such a case – Applications dismissed – Where the husband’s costs, fixed in the sum of $10,000, are reserved to the appeal.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.08, 19.05
Adult Guardian and Mother’s Parents and B and Child’s Representative (2002) FLC 93-116; [2002] FamCA 874
Atkins & Hunt(Security for Costs) (2015) FLC 93-646; [2015] FamCAFC 66
Frazier & Valdez (2016) FLC 93-729; [2016] FamCAFC 163
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Jones and Jones (2001) FLC 93-080; [2001] FamCA 460
Luadaka v Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830; [1998] FamCA 1520
Malcher & Malcher (Security for Costs) (2017) FLC 93-803; [2017] FamCAFC 202
Palma & Caleffi (Security for Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 174
Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott (2016) 91 ALJR 679; [2016] HCA 22
Sawer & Sawer [2007] FamCA 140
APPELLANT: Mr B Weng
FIRST RESPONDENT: Ms Wah
SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr C Weng
THIRD RESPONDENT: D Pty
FOURTH RESPONDENT: E Pty Ltd
FIFTH RESPONDENT: F Pty Ltd
SIXTH RESPONDENT: G Ltd
SEVENTH RESPONDENT: The Mr C Weng Family Trust
EIGHTH RESPONDENT: The H Family Trust
NINTH RESPONDENT: The J Family Trust
TENTH RESPONDENT: K Pty Ltd
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT L Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER: MLC 9718 of 2014
APPEAL NUMBER: NOA 82 of 2019
DATE DELIVERED: 10 December 2019
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
PLACE HEARD: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: Kent J
HEARING DATE: 9 December 2019
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 16 August 2019
LOWER COURT MNC: [2019] FamCA 562

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Hartwell
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Tang Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Taylor

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST 

RESPONDENT:

 NB Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:  Mr Drysdale
SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: HopgoodGanim Lawyers
THE THIRD TO ELEVENTH RESPONDENTS: No appearance

Orders

  1. The Application in an Appeal filed by the First Respondent on 31 October 2019 be dismissed.

  2. The Application in an Appeal filed by the Second Respondent on 31 October…

Continue reading Weng and Wah and Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Weng and Wah and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 242
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Weng and Wah and Ors involved a dispute between multiple parties. The specifics of the dispute are not provided, but it is clear that there were at least three respondents involved, as indicated by the orders. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of a jurisdiction, though the exact location is not specified. The case concerned an appeal process, with the respondents seeking to overturn a previous decision.

The legal issues the court had to address were related to the validity and appropriateness of the appeal process and the costs associated with the applications. The court needed to determine whether the appeals filed by the respondents on 31 October 2019 were justified and whether the costs incurred by the husband should be reserved for the Full Court hearing the appeal.

The court dismissed both appeals filed by the respondents, finding them to be without merit. It reasoned that the appeals did not present valid grounds for overturning the previous decision. Furthermore, the court fixed the husband's costs of and incidental to these applications at $10,000, reserving these costs for the Full Court that would hear the appeal. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records, ensuring that the final order reflects the court's decision accurately.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application in an Appeal filed by the First Respondent on 31 October 2019 be dismissed.

2.

The Application in an Appeal filed by the Second Respondent on 31 October 2019 be dismissed.

3.

The husband’s costs of and incidental to these applications fixed in the sum of $10,000 be reserved to the Full Court hearing the appeal.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.