Legal Research
Cases
Yuna & Ping (No 2)

Yuna & Ping (No 2)

Case [2024] FedCFamC2F 718

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Yuna & Ping (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 718
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 718
Decision Date: 6 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 3740 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR YUNA

Applicant

AND:

MS PING

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TURNBULL

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JUNE 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Paragraph 3(a), (b) and (c) of the Orders made by Senior Judicial Registrar Evans on 12 April 2024 be discharged.

2. All monies in D Bank accounts (acc no: …88 and …93) be transferred to E Bank account (acc no: …18).

3. The Husband's Application in a Proceeding seeking a stay, filed on 9 May 2024, be dismissed.

4. The Amended Application for Review filed 10 May 2024 be otherwise dismissed.

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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

Actions

Citations

Yuna & Ping (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 718

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Zha & Wun (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1F 830
Citation 1 (Para 8)

…The law applicable to interlocutory injunctions was helpfully summarised by Schonell J in Zha & Wun (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1F 830: 35. The circumstances in which this Court will grant an injunction are well settled. 36.Section 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides the Court power to grant injunctions.…
Stinson & Goldsmith (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 540
Citation 2 (Para 25)

…ly added back to the asset pool at trial.[31] That question would remain a matter for the trial judge’s discretion. [31] Stinson & Goldsmith (No.2) [2021] FamCA 540 [40]-[43].…
Feiteiro & Feiteiro [2019] FamCA 647
Citation 3 (Para 6)

…the review of a registrar’s determination is an original hearing, in the sense that error does not need to be established: see Feiteiro & Feiteiro [2019] FamCA 647 at [17] referring to Henley & Henley [2019] FamCA 101 at [7]. Thus, the review is taken to mean a re-examination of the matter afresh: see Tomko v Pala…
Tsiang & Wu and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128
Citation 4 (Para 8)

…ell settled. 36.Section 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides the Court power to grant injunctions. 37.In Tsiang & Wu and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128; (2019) FLC 93-911, the Full Court summarised the relevant law in relation to injunctions in the following terms: 20.The grant of an injunction is discre…
Henley & Henley [2019] FamCA 101
Citation 5 (Para 6)

…nal hearing, in the sense that error does not need to be established: see Feiteiro & Feiteiro [2019] FamCA 647 at [17] referring to Henley & Henley [2019] FamCA 101 at [7]. Thus, the review is taken to mean a re-examination of the matter afresh: see Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369; (2007) 71 NSWLR 61 at [43…
Palmer v Parbery; QNI Metals Pty Ltd v Parbery [2019] QCA 27
Citation 6 (Para 8)

…Pty Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 729). 27.As to the determination of the existence of the risk and its magnitude, in Palmer v Parbery [2019] QCA 27 McMurdo JA (with whom Fraser and Gotterson JJA agreed) said: 119.The determination of whether there exists a sufficiently serious risk of the dissipation of assets involves th…
Skyworks v 32 Drummoyne Road [2017] NSWSC 343
Citation 7 (Para 8)

…isk of such dissipation may be assessed as being somewhat less probable than not. 23.As McDougall J in Skyworks v 32 Drummoyne Road [2017] NSWSC 343 said: 24. The Court is required to undertake a qualitative evaluation of all the evidence that is available, to see if there is a sufficiently serious risk of frustrat…
Norton & Locke [2013] FamCAFC 202
Citation 8 (Para 9)

…The Full Court in Norton & Locke [2013] FamCAFC 202 considered the question of whether an injunction could issue to preserve the status quo: 44. ...[T]his court has the power to make what this court has described as “holding orders” pending the determination of the jurisdictional facts necessary to found jurisdiction…
Noble Earth Technologies Pty Ltd v Hampic Pty Ltd trading as Cyndan Chemicals [2012] NSWSC 935
Citation 9 (Para 6)

…07] NSWCA 369; (2007) 71 NSWLR 61 at [43]. 44.As Hallen J observed in Noble Earth Technologies Pty Ltd v Hampic Pty Ltd trading as Cyndan Chemicals [2012] NSWSC 935 at [39]: Although on review, the Court should consider the matter afresh, it does not follow that the reasoning of the registrar should be ignored, or…
Kyle and Hood and Ors [2010] FamCA 550
Citation 10 (Para 8)

…ns, in essence it requires the demonstration of an arguable case or as was said in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65], the applicant must “show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo”. 21. Next the appl…
Wily re LED (South Coast) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 946
Citation 11 (Para 6)

…sis on which the decision was made and the material placed before the court itself on the application for review: Wily re LED (South Coast) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 946 at [24] – [26]. Overview…
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369
Citation 12 (Para 6)

…ing to Henley & Henley [2019] FamCA 101 at [7]. Thus, the review is taken to mean a re-examination of the matter afresh: see Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369; (2007) 71 NSWLR 61 at [43]. 44.As Hallen J observed in Noble Earth Technologies Pty Ltd v Hampic Pty Ltd trading as Cyndan Chemicals [2012] NSWSC 935…
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46
Citation 13 (Para 8)

…arious iterations, in essence it requires the demonstration of an arguable case or as was said in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65], the applicant must “show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo”…
Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [1996] FCA 675
Citation 14 (Para 8)

…n of or dealings with assets which will frustrate any judgment in favour of the applicant. 22.In Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319, Gleeson CJ said after discussing the discretionary nature of the remedy at 321–325: ... as a general rule a plaintiff will need to establish, first, a prima facie…
Hansen & Kane [2022] FedCFamC2F 949
Citation 15 (Para 6)

…ircuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), an Application for Review is to be heard as an original hearing. In Hansen & Kane [2022] FedCFamC2F 949, DCJ McClelland explained the approach to be taken with a Review: 43.The effect of these rules is that the review of a registrar’s determination is a…

AI Chat coming soon