Weng & Wah - [2021] FamCAFC 71

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Weng & Wah [2021] FamCAFC 71

Appeal from: Weng & Wah and Ors [2019] FamCA 562

Appeal number(s): NOA 82 of 2019

File number(s): MLC 9718 of 2014

Judgment of: ALDRIDGE, WATTS & CAREW JJ

Date of judgment: 11 May 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATIONS IN AN APPEAL – SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Appeal from property orders – Appellant failed to file Summary of Argument – Grounds too broad to make sense without Summary of Argument – Where the first respondent sought summary dismissal of the appeal – Where the appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal – Where the appellant consistently failed to comply with procedural orders – Appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – In the public interest to maintain timely compliance with procedural directions – Application for adjournment is dismissed – Application for summary dismissal granted – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

Legislation: Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.45

Division: Appeal Division

Number of paragraphs: 32

Date of hearing: 11 May 2021

Place: Brisbane

Appellant: Self-represented litigant

First Respondent: Self-represented litigant

Second Respondent: Self-represented litigant

Third – Eleventh Respondents: No appearance
ORDERS

NOA 82 of 2019
MLC 9718 of 2014

APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
MR B WENG

Appellant

AND:
MS WAH

First Respondent

MR C WENG

Second Respondent

D PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, WATTS & CAREW JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MAY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in an Appeal filed by the first respondent on 1 March 2021 be granted.
2.The Application in an Appeal filed by the appellant on 10 May 2021 be dismissed.
3.Appeal No. NOA 82 of 2019 be dismissed.
4.There be no orders as to costs.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Weng & Wah has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALDRIDGE J:

This is the hearing of two Applications in an Appeal.
The first application, filed on 1 March 2021 by the first respondent, seeks the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”), because the appellant failed to file a Summary of Argument in the time permitted by the orders of the Appeals Registrar.
The second Application in an Appeal was filed yesterday, on 10 May 2021, by the appellant. The application seeks the adjournment of the appeal so as to permit the appellant time to prepare…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Weng & Wah

Details

AGLC: Weng & Wah [2021] FamCAFC 71
Case: [2021] FamCAFC 71
Decision Date: 11 MAY 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the matter of Weng & Wah involved an appeal against property orders. The appellant sought to appeal the original decision, but failed to file a Summary of Argument, resulting in broad and unclear grounds of appeal. The first respondent applied for the appeal to be summarily dismissed, and the appellant applied for an adjournment to file the missing document. The appellant had also consistently failed to comply with procedural orders. The court considered whether the appeal had any reasonable prospects of success and whether it was in the public interest to maintain timely compliance with procedural directions.

The court found that the appellant's grounds of appeal were too broad and unclear due to the missing Summary of Argument. The appellant's repeated failure to comply with procedural orders further undermined the prospects of success for the appeal. The court held that it was in the public interest to maintain timely compliance with procedural directions and ensure the efficient administration of justice. Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant's application for an adjournment and granted the first respondent's application for summary dismissal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in family law matters. Failure to comply with such requirements can result in the dismissal of an appeal, regardless of the merits of the case. This case serves as a reminder to parties to carefully follow procedural rules to avoid unnecessary delays and ensure the effective administration of justice.

The court ordered that the first respondent's application for summary dismissal be granted, the appellant's application for an adjournment be dismissed, and the appeal be dismissed. There were to be no orders as to costs. The form of the order was subject to entry in the court's records, and the Reasons for Judgment could be subject to review or variation as per the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). The court's decision was published under the pseudonym Weng & Wah, with approval from the Chief Justice under section 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in an Appeal filed by the first respondent on 1 March 2021 be granted.

2. The Application in an Appeal filed by the appellant on 10 May 2021 be dismissed.

3. Appeal No. NOA 82 of 2019 be dismissed.

4. There be no orders as to costs.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

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

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

THE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: THE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Appeal from:	Weng & Wah and Ors [2019] FamCA 562
Appeal number(s):	NOA 82 of 2019
File number(s):	MLC 9718 of 2014
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE, WATTS & CAREW JJ
Date of judgment:	11 May 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATIONS IN AN APPEAL – SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Appeal from property orders – Appellant failed to file Summary of Argument – Grounds too broad to make sense without Summary of Argument – Where the first respondent sought summary dismissal of the appeal – Where the appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal – Where the appellant consistently failed to comply with procedural orders – Appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – In the public interest to maintain timely compliance with procedural directions – Application for adjournment is dismissed – Application for summary dismissal granted – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.
Legislation:	Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.45
Division:	Appeal Division
Number of paragraphs:	32
Date of hearing:	11 May 2021
Place:	Brisbane
Appellant:	Self-represented litigant
First Respondent:	Self-represented litigant
Second Respondent:	Self-represented litigant
Third – Eleventh Respondents:	No appearance

NOA 82 of 2019 MLC 9718 of 2014
APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:	MR B WENG Appellant
AND:	MS WAH First Respondent MR C WENG Second Respondent D PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule) Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE, WATTS & CAREW JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	11 MAY 2021