YANG & CHIN

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

YANG & CHIN [2012] FamCA 436

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – forum non conveniens

APPLICANT: Ms Yang

RESPONDENT: Mr Chin

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7323 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 23 May 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 5 August 2011 and 4 May 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Anderson of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: DC Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Matthews of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Lang Hemming & Hall

Amended on 4 june 2012 pursuant to rule 17.02 of the family law rules 2004

Orders

1. That all orders sought in relation to parenting as encompassed in the Wife’s Further Amended Initiating Application filed 21 February 2011 be permanently stayed. 

2. That the Wife’s Application in a Case filed 9 June 2011 be permanently stayed. 

3. That the Wife pay the Husband’s costs of and incidental the Wife’s Application in a Case filed 9 June 2011, including the costs reserved by the Orders of 10 December 2010 and 27 April 2011 before Justice O’Reilly, on a party and party basis in a sum agreed or in default of agreement as assessed under the Family Law Rules.

4. That all orders sought in relation to property including the Wife’s Further Amended Initiating Application filed 21 February 2011 be permanently stayed. 

NOTATION:

This Order has been amended pursuant to Rule 17.02 of the Family Law Rules 2004 by amending paragraph (3) to record the correct date of Justice O’Reilly’s Orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Yang & Chin has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7323 of 2010

Ms Yang

Applicant

And

Mr Chin

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 5 August 2011 this matter came before me on the Wife’s application to vacate a stay of proceedings.  Both parenting and property proceedings had been stayed pursuant to the Orders of O’Reilly J on 21 December 2010, pending final determination of the parenting proceedings in Taiwan. 

2. The issue essentially became one of forum, as both parties and the subject child were Taiwanese, the Applicant Wife had commenced parenting proceedings in Taiwan first in time and, furthermore, the Taiwanese proceedings had been finalised by the end of June 2011, that is, by the time it came before me for hearing.

3. On 2 September 2011 I published my reasons on the issue of forum non conveniens.  By way of Orders that day the Wife’s Application in a Case filed 9 June 2011 was stayed and leave granted for any written submissions on costs to be lodged by 4.00pm on 30 September 2011.  At the conclusion of the discrete hearing as to forum, Counsel for the Wife also referred me to the final orders sought in relation to property, as encompassed by the Wife’s Further Amended Initiating Application (filed 21 February 2011).  Accordingly,…