Wong and Shen and Ors

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WONG & SHEN & ORS [2016] FCCA 1143

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Whether wife’s solicitor should be restrained from acting.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, Sch. 1

Cases cited:

Bosgard & Bosgard [2013] FamCA 308
Healthcare At Home Limited v The Common Services Agency (Scotland) (2014) UKSC 49
Kallinicos & Anor v Hunt & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1181
McMillan and McMillan (2000) FLC 93-048
Osferatu & Osferatu [2015]FamCAFC 177
Yunghanns v Elfic (Unreported) Supreme Court of Victoria (3 July 1998)

Applicant: MR WONG

First Respondent: MS SHEN

Second Respondent: MS SAW

Third Respondent: (OMITTED) PTY LTD

File Number: MLC 8882 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Roberts

Hearing date: 8 March 2016

Date of Last Submission: 8 March 2016

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 8 March 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr McIvor

Solicitors for the Applicant: Pentana Stanton Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Wilson

Solicitors for the Respondent: GR Lawyers

ORDERS

1. That Ziran Guo and GR Lawyers of 501 Little Collins Street, Melbourne be and are hereby restrained from continuing to act further for any of the Respondents in these proceedings.

2. That the Respondent Wife pay the Applicant Husband’s costs of today fixed in the sum of $3,242, payable by the Wife at the conclusion of the parties’ competing applications in relation to property matters.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Wong & Shen & Ors is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 8882 of 2015

MR WONG

Applicant

And

MS SHEN

First Respondent

MS SAW

Second Respondent

(OMITTED) PTY LTD

Third Respondent

SETTLED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Applicant is MR WONG (“the husband”). 

2. The First Respondent is MS SHEN (“the wife”).  Her mother, MS SAW is the Second Respondent and a company, (OMITTED) PTY LTD is the Third Respondent. 

3. The solicitor currently acting for the wife is also acting in the proceedings for the other two respondents. 

4. The application before me was transferred to me today by Judge Hartnett.  The matter is already on track to go further with the proceedings but there is one narrow issue that needs to be determined today.  That is the application by the husband that the wife’s solicitor by restrained from acting.

5. The facts when I read the affidavits are not wholeheartedly agreed but there are basic facts that are agreed:

   ·The husband and wife married. 

   ·It was a relatively short marriage in the scheme of things.   

   ·Mr Guo, the solicitor for the Respondents is, or certainly was, a Migration Agent and did some work in that capacity for the husband and the wife. 

   ·Earlier in the piece there was, what I will describe a friendly relationship between Mr Guo and the husband and the wife. 

   ·There is dispute between Mr Guo and the husband as to how friendly that relationship was but it appears clear to me that the husband and the wife were invited to…