Zha & Wun (No 8)

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Ms Zha, the wife, and Mr Wun, the husband, were the central parties in a complex family law dispute involving allegations of significant property, asset concealment, and the control of companies. The wife argued that the property pool was in excess of $650 million and that a company, AB Ltd, was the alter ego of the husband or held on trust for him. In contrast, the husband contended that the property pool was around $50 million and denied any connection between AB Ltd and himself. The dispute also included differing dates of cohabitation, alleged non-disclosure, and asset protection strategies. Both parties sought sole ownership of shares in a jointly owned company. The court needed to decide on the value of the property pool, the nature of the relationship between the husband and AB Ltd, the date of cohabitation, and issues of non-disclosure and credit.

The court approached the case with caution, recognising the complexity of the evidence and the cultural factors influencing the witnesses' presentations. It noted that the wife's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, requiring a balance of probabilities assessment. The court found that the wife, husband, and husband’s brother were untruthful at times and their evidence was approached with scepticism. Other witnesses, including business associates, were deemed unreliable due to vague recollections and self-serving motives. The court concluded that AB Ltd was not the alter ego of the husband nor held on trust for him. The court also determined that the wife's evidence regarding cohabitation and asset concealment was not credible.

The court issued detailed financial orders, including the payment of $9,744,000 by the husband to the wife, the transfer of his interest in a company to the wife, and restrictions on dealing with certain properties and funds pending compliance with the orders. The court further restrained the parties from dealing with specific assets until the husband complied with the financial orders. The wife was granted the liberty to apply for the implementation of these orders, and the parties were directed to register the orders in the High Court of Country AD. Applications for costs were to be filed within 28 days of the orders.