Zha & Wun (No 4)

The case of Zha & Wun (No 4) involved the wife, Ms. Zha, seeking to uphold ex parte injunctions against bank accounts in Country AD, which were initially made against the second respondent, Mr. A. Wun, and AB Pty Ltd. The respondents argued for setting aside these injunctions. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the injunctions should remain in place, considering the respondents' contention that the injunctions were not necessary as the funds in question constituted a small fraction of the total asset pool.

The court had to decide whether the wife, as the moving party, had met her burden of proof in establishing the necessity of the injunctions, despite the delay in bringing the application. The wife asserted that the total asset pool was approximately AUD$897 million, with the funds injuncted in Country AD amounting to around AUD$22 million. The respondents argued that the injunctions were unnecessary since the injuncted funds represented only about 2.6% of the total asset pool. However, the court found that this argument was superficial and failed to address the practical difficulties in enforcing judgments in Country AD, especially given that the majority of the assets were overseas.

The court concluded that the wife had demonstrated an arguable claim for the injunctions, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunctions. The wife's undertaking as to damages was deemed sufficient, and the court was not satisfied that the wife had failed in her obligations in seeking the ex parte injunctions. Therefore, the application to set aside the injunctions was dismissed. The court's decision emphasised the importance of the wife's ability to enforce any judgment sum, especially considering the significant proportion of assets located overseas.

The final order of the court was that the application to set aside the injunctions be dismissed. This decision reflects the court's assessment that the injunctions were justified and necessary to protect the wife's interests in the matrimonial property dispute.