Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Zha & Wun (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 576
File number(s): SYC 4269 of 2020 Judgment of: SCHONELL J Date of judgment: 10 August 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL – Interim orders – Where the wife sought various financial orders against the husband – Where the husband opposed the orders and sought to discharge various existing consent orders by seeking to sell various properties – Where the husband did not establish a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the orders – Husband’s application dismissed – Orders sought by the wife made.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife sought against the second and third respondents enforcement of disclosure orders previously made and various restraints – Where the second and third respondents contended that later orders superseded the earlier disclosure orders – Interpretation of orders and judgment – Where the later orders did not supplant the earlier disclosure orders – Where the wife also sought to join a company that the second respondent is the sole director shareholder of – Where it is appropriate to that the company be joined to the proceedings.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 80, 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 13.04
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 6.06
Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Phillip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39
Kachmar & Madero [2022] FedCFamC1F 476
Medlow& Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34
Salvage & Fosse (2020) FLC 93-966; [2020] FamCAFC 144
Shamon & Shamon [2021] FamCA 417
Strahan & Strahan (2011) FLC 93-466; [2009] FamCAFC 166
Zha & Wun [2021] FamCA 143
Zha & Wun [2022] FedCFamC1F 274
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 77 Date of hearing: 29 July 2022 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Dickson QC with Mr Fudim Solicitor for the Applicant: Pickering Pendleton Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Ahmad Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sunfield Chambers Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: Mr Hollo Solicitor for Second and Third Respondents: David H Cohen & Co. ORDERS
SYC 4269 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS ZHA
ApplicantAND: MR WUN
First RespondentMR A WUN
Second Respondent
MS YANG
Third Respondent
order made by:
SCHONELL J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 August 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That within 7 days of the date of these Orders, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to transfer the following into a bank account in the applicant wife’s (“the wife’s”) sole name (the Utility account):
1.1 100% of the funds presently held in Offset Account ending #84;
1.2 100% of the funds presently held in Offset Account ending #64; and
1.3 100% of the funds presently held in Offset Account ending #03.
2.That upon receipt of the funds into the…
Continue reading Zha & Wun (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Zha & Wun (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 576
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC1F 576
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the husband's application to dismiss the injunctive orders made on 7 July 2020, the wife's application for interim costs, and the husband's argument that either the Australian proceedings should be stayed pending the completion of the proceedings in China or that Australia was not an appropriate forum for determining the property issues between the parties. The court noted that the issues left to be determined on an interim basis were these three matters, with the estimated hearing length for the interim costs application and the discharge of the injunctions set at one day, and the forum argument requiring an additional day.
The court, in its reasoning, considered the arguments presented by both parties. The husband argued that the injunctive orders should be dismissed as they were based on outdated information and that Australia was not the appropriate forum for determining the property issues due to the ongoing proceedings in China. The wife, on the other hand, sought interim costs and maintained that the injunctive orders should remain in place to protect her interests. The court, after considering the submissions and evidence, decided to proceed with the hearing via Microsoft Teams unless otherwise directed. The outcome of the court's decision on these interim applications will be detailed in the final orders, which may include directives on the continuation of the injunctive orders, the allocation of interim costs, and the appropriateness of the Australian forum for the property issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.