Zeng and Jing & Anor (No. 2)

In the matter of *Zeng and Jing & Anor (No. 2)*, Cronin J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered applications by the husband concerning parenting arrangements for a child under three years of age and property settlement. The husband sought a staged approach to contact orders, including overnight stays once suitable accommodation was secured. The wife opposed the extent of the proposed first stage of contact, but the court found no basis for her concerns given her willingness to have the child in her care around the time of separation. The husband also sought urgent interim property orders, including injunctive relief to prevent asset disposal, and an application under s 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court was required to determine the appropriateness of the proposed parenting contact orders, considering the child's welfare and the impact of increased time with the husband. Regarding property, the court needed to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to grant a partial property settlement on an urgent basis and whether injunctive relief, including orders under s 106B, was warranted to protect the husband's claimed interests in assets. The court also had to consider the completeness and clarity of the evidence presented by the wife and the second respondent concerning their property interests.

On the parenting issue, the court found the husband's proposed staged contact orders to be inappropriate without further assessment of their impact on the child. However, it noted the wife's prior willingness to care for the child, which mitigated her concerns about the husband's capacity. For property, the court refused the husband's application for a partial property settlement due to incomplete or absent evidence from the wife and second respondent regarding their property interests, indicating he could reapply when the evidence was clearer. While the evidence supported granting injunctions against the disposal or encumbrance of fixed assets and alterations to corporate/trust structures by the wife and second respondent, the court refused the application under s 106B as there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the husband's interests of claim had been defeated, as the property in question might not belong to the husband and wife.

Consequently, the court adjourned the applications for interim parenting and property orders to a later date. The application for a partial property settlement and litigation funding was refused, as was the application for s 106B orders. Injunctions were granted restraining the wife and second respondent from disposing of or encumbering assets and from altering corporate or trust structures, save by agreement or further order. Leave was granted for the husband to apply to vary or extend existing parenting orders.