FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Zha & Wun (No 10) [2024] FedCFamC1F 850
File number: SYC 4269 of 2020 Judgment of: SCHONELL J Date of judgment: 9 December 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Slip rule – Application to vary order of the Court under rule 5.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Whether the orders in question reflect the Court’s intention at the time the orders were made – Where the wife seeks leave to provide documents in Australian family law proceedings to other jurisdictions – Where the wife contends that the documents form part of the court record, were used in the proceedings, are not the subject of any Harman undertaking, and that disclosure of them would not be a communication to the public within the meaning of s 114Q – Where the husband does not consent to the release of documents due to the lack of specificity and precision of the documents – Where the second respondent contends that there is an absence of any evidence on behalf of the wife that the documents were necessary for the wife to achieve justice in the other proceedings – Application dismissed. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114Q
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 5.01, 6.04, 10.13(e), 10.13(g)
Cases cited: Chakora and Bhander [2023] FedCFamC1F 127
Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280
Liberty Funding Pty Ltd v Phoenix Capital Ltd (2005) 218 ALR 283; [2005] FCAFC 3
Littlefield & Pemble (2023) FLC 94-165; [2023] FedCFamC1A 198
Pace & Halkias [2021] FamCAFC 81
R Pty Ltd ATF The Fletcher Trust & Jones and Anor [2016] FamCA 928
Re Orana Barellan Aboriginal Corporation (In Liq) [2002] NSWSC 990
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217
Zha & Wun (No 8) [2024] FedCFamC1F 648
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 32 Date of hearing: 27 November 2024 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Reynolds Solicitor for the Applicant: Pickering Pendleton Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Gray Solicitor for the First Respondent: York Law Counsel for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: Mr Turnbull Solicitor for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: David H Cohen & Co ORDERS
SYC 4269 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS ZHA
Applicant
AND: MR WUN
First Respondent
MR A WUN
Second Respondent
MS YANG (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
SCHONELL J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 DECEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The relief as sought in the wife’s Further Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 25 November 2024 as to Order 1 – 3 is 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…
Continue reading Zha & Wun (No 10)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Zha & Wun (No 10) [2024] FedCFamC1F 850
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC1F 850
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court involved interpreting the slip rule and whether the documents in question could be disclosed to other jurisdictions. Ms Zha argued that the documents formed part of the court record, were used in the proceedings, were not subject to any Harman undertaking, and that disclosure would not constitute a communication to the public within the meaning of section 114Q. Mr Wun opposed the application, contending that the documents lacked specificity and precision. Additionally, Mr A Wun argued that there was no evidence to show that the documents were necessary for Ms Zha to achieve justice in the other proceedings.
The Court found that the orders in question did reflect the Court’s intention at the time they were made. However, it dismissed the application for leave to provide the documents to other jurisdictions. The Court was not satisfied that the documents were necessary for Ms Zha to achieve justice in the other proceedings, particularly due to the lack of evidence supporting this contention. Consequently, the Court ruled that the application for disclosure should be dismissed.
The Court dismissed the application as sought in the Further Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 25 November 2024. This order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records and may be subject to review or variation under the relevant Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
SYC 4269 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MS ZHA
Applicant
AND:
MR WUN
First Respondent
MR A WUN
Second Respondent
MS YANG (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
SCHONELL J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 DECEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The relief as sought in the wife’s Further Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 25 November 2024 as to Order 1 – 3 is 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.