Zong & Lim (No 4) - [2021] FCCA 319

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Zong & Lim (No 4) [2021] FCCA 319

File number(s): BRC 8160 of 2014

Judgment of: JUDGE COATES

Date of judgment: 20 January 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – parenting – application for adjournment of trial.

Legislation: Family Law Act1975 (Cth), s 102NA.

Number of paragraphs: 39

Date of last submission/s: 20 January 2021

Date of hearing: 20 January 2021

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms K. Oakley

Solicitor for the Applicant: Lander Solicitors QLD

Respondent: Self-represented

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms J. McArdle

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Julie Harrington Solicitor
ORDERS

BRC 8160 of 2014

BETWEEN:
MS ZONG

Applicant

AND:
MR LIM

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE COATES

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JANUARY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That leave be granted for the father’s legal representatives, HCM Legal to withdraw from acting on behalf of the father.
2.That pursuant to r.21.16 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001 this matter be certified as appropriate for Counsel.
3.That the mother’s costs and Independent Children’s Lawyers costs of today be reserved.
4.That the Final Hearing set down for not more than four (4) days commencing on 25 January 2021 be vacated.
5.That the matter be set down for a Final Hearing for not more than four (4) days commencing at 9.30am on 20 April 2021 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

IT IS NOTED:
A.That the mother and father require Mandarin interpreters for the Final Hearing.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Zong & Lim (No.4) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE COATES:
This judgment was delivered orally and has been corrected for written comprehension.

This is a matter involving an eight-year-old child.
It is a very bitter dispute between the parents, with allegations of risk which are going to be put forward in the mother’s case, whereby the court will be asked to make a no-contact order between the child and the father.
There are a number of complications in running this particular trial.
The first complication is that both parents are Chinese by birth, and English is not their first language.
Even though I am satisfied that they have a grasp of the English language, most certainly the father will need the assistance of an interpreter and the mother may well need such assistance as well.
Another complicating factor is that the parties were conducting a relationship together when living in Perth, but the mother and child now live in Brisbane, with the father remaining in Perth.
There appears to be no evidence that either party intend moving from those respective cities.
The distance, the cost of travel, the time of travel, and the age of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Zong & Lim (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Zong & Lim (No 4) [2021] FCCA 319
Case: [2021] FCCA 319
Decision Date: 20 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Zong & Lim (No 4)*, heard by Coates J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the applicant, Ms Zong (the mother), and the respondent, Mr Lim (the father), were involved in proceedings. The specific dispute leading to this order concerned the father's legal representation and the scheduling of a final hearing.

The court was required to determine whether to grant leave for the father's legal representatives to withdraw from acting on his behalf. Additionally, the court considered whether the matter was appropriate for certification as a case requiring counsel, and how to manage the costs of the proceedings, specifically those of the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court also had to address the vacation of a previously scheduled final hearing and the setting of a new date.

Coates J granted leave for the father's legal representatives, HCM Legal, to withdraw. The court certified the matter as appropriate for counsel pursuant to rule 21.16 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001*. The costs of the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer for the hearing on 20 January 2021 were reserved. The final hearing previously scheduled for 25 January 2021 was vacated, and a new final hearing was set down for four days, commencing on 20 April 2021, at 9:30 am in Brisbane.

Orders

Orders of the court

BRC 8160 of 2014

BETWEEN:

MS ZONG

Applicant

AND:

MR LIM

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE COATES

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JANUARY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. That leave be granted for the father’s legal representatives, HCM Legal to withdraw from acting on behalf of the father.

2. That pursuant to r.21.16 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 this matter be certified as appropriate for Counsel.

3. That the mother’s costs and Independent Children’s Lawyers costs of today be reserved.

4. That the Final Hearing set down for not more than four (4) days commencing on 25 January 2021 be vacated.

5. That the matter be set down for a Final Hearing for not more than four (4) days commencing at 9.30am on 20 April 2021 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

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.

File number(s):	BRC 8160 of 2014
Judgment of:	JUDGE COATES
Date of judgment:	20 January 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – parenting – application for adjournment of trial.
Legislation:	Family Law Act1975 (Cth), s 102NA.
Number of paragraphs:	39
Date of last submission/s:	20 January 2021
Date of hearing:	20 January 2021
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms K. Oakley
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Lander Solicitors QLD
Respondent:	Self-represented
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Ms J. McArdle
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Julie Harrington Solicitor

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE COATES
DATE OF ORDER:	20 JANUARY 2021