Wing And Anor and Cleeve

[2010] FamCA 111

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WING AND ANOR & CLEEVE [2010] FamCA 111

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE – Adjournment

APPLICANT

For application filed 2 November 2009:
RESPONDENT
For application filed 30 November 2009:

Mr Wing

APPLICANT

For application filed 30 November 2009:

Mr Chiu

RESPONDENT: Ms Cleeve

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3599 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 4 February 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cohen J

HEARING DATE: 4 February 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR MR WING: Mr Murahan

SOLICITOR FOR MR WING: Zhang Shijing Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR MR CHIU: Ms A. Stenmark SC

SOLICITOR FOR MR CHIU: Austin Haworth & Lexon Legal

Orders

1. That the Application in a Case filed by Mr Chiu on 30 November 2009 and the Application in a Case of Mr Wing filed 2 November 2009 are adjourned until such time as the matter has been heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

2. That leave is granted to any party to either the Application in a Case filed by Mr Chiu on 30 November 2009 or the Application in a Case of Mr Wing filed 2 November 2009 to approach the associate to Justice Cohen to have the matter relisted once the New South Wales Court of Appeal has delivered its judgment in the appeal.

3. That leave is granted to the legal representative of Mr Chiu to inspect the Family Court of Australia file SYC3599/2008 in this matter.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Wing and Anor & Cleeve is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER:   SYC 3599 of 2008

MR WING

Applicant/Respondent

and

MR CHIU

Applicant

and

MS CLEEVE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In these proceedings, it seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about what is the appropriate course to take.  One thing is certain, that confusion will be reduced to some extent and may be completely reduced by a judgment on appeal, that is, in relation to the proceedings that the parties were originally engaged in, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

2. Until that judgment is known, this matter should be adjourned and I shall adjourn the matter.  I grant the parties appearing before me, that is, the husband and the applicant, who is the applicant to be joined, Mr Chiu, leave to approach my associate to obtain a date for hearing in the ordinary motions list, of all applications that are currently being brought by the husband and Mr Chiu once the Court of Appeal has delivered its decision in the appeal which is currently pending.

3. However, I am impressed by Ms Stenmark’s stance that it is unfair to the applicant that he does not know whether there is sufficient money in dispute between the husband and wife in this court to warrant him continuing to seek to be a party.  The simple solution for that is to permit him, pursuant to the rules, to inspect the Family Court file in the matter between the husband and wife, and I grant him leave to inspect that file.

4. I shall adjourn this matter to a date to be fixed as a half-day matter.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cohen

Associate:     

Date:              23 February 2010