Ming & Leong [2025] FedCFamC1A 3

Introduction

The case of Ming v Leong [2025] FedCFamC1A 3 involved an appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) concerning property settlement orders under section 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This appeal centered on whether the respondent, Mr. Leong, failed to provide full and frank disclosure of a property acquired post-separation, which the appellant, Ms. Ming, argued should lead to the original property orders being overturned. The court assessed the impact of this alleged non-disclosure on the fairness of the original decision, considering the timing of the property purchase, the financial independence of both parties’ post-separation, and the overall history of non-disclosure by both sides. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that no miscarriage of justice had occurred, and that the non-disclosure would not have led to a substantially different outcome.

Background

Ms Ming and Mr Leong married in 1996 and separated in 2012. Their property dispute has a prolonged history involving multiple hearings and appeals, reflecting the complex and contentious nature of the case. The original property orders were made by Judge Coates in 2019, allocating three properties between the parties, with Ms Ming required to pay Mr Leong $14,000. The court considered factors such as each party’s contributions, their financial circumstances post-separation, and the prolonged period during which the dispute persisted.

In 2023, Ms Ming sought to set aside these orders under section 79A, alleging that Mr Leong had failed to disclose the purchase of a property in Suburb H, Queensland. She contended that this non-disclosure had materially impacted the outcome of the original property orders. However, the primary judge found that the property had been acquired six years after separation using Mr Leong’s resources, with no financial input from Ms Ming. Consequently, the judge concluded that the non-disclosure did not amount to a miscarriage of justice that would justify overturning the property orders. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Ms Ming appealed the decision, leading to the current judgment, which further examined the legal principles surrounding non-disclosure, financial independence, and the impact on property settlements under Australian family law.

Key Legal Issues and Questions for the Court

The court addressed several key legal issues related to property settlement and non-disclosure, specifically:

1. Non-Disclosure of Property: Whether Mr Leong’s failure to disclose the purchase of Suburb H property constituted a miscarriage of justice under section 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. Timing and Financial Independence: Whether the property acquisition, occurring six years post-separation with no financial contributions from Ms Ming, was relevant to the property division.
3. Impact on Property Settlement Orders: Whether the non-disclosure would have resulted in substantially different property settlement orders if it had been disclosed.
4. Exercise of Judicial Discretion: Whether, even if a miscarriage of justice was found, the court should exercise its discretion to set aside or vary the orders.
5. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence: Whether the additional evidence submitted by Ms Ming should be admitted on appeal based on the principles outlined in CDJ v VAJ.

Case Authorities and Cited Precedents

The case referenced key legal authorities and precedents essential for assessing property settlement and non-disclosure issues under section 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. Ming & Leong [2025] FedCFamC1A 3 – Addressed whether the respondent’s failure to disclose the property purchase constituted a miscarriage of justice, directly informing the appellate court’s analysis.

Link: Full Case

• Livesey v Jenkins [1984] UKHL 3; [1985] 1 AC 424 – Established the test for setting aside orders due to non-disclosure, which was central to determining whether the non-disclosure of the Suburb H property warranted overturning the original orders.

Link: Full Case

• Patching and Patching (1995) FLC 92-585; [1995] FamCA 46 – Applied to assess whether the appellant met the four-step test for setting aside property orders under section 79A.

Link: Full Case

• Leong & Ming [2018] FamCAFC 7 – Demonstrated how non-disclosure of liabilities previously led to a rehearing, establishing context for the appellant’s claim regarding undisclosed property.

Link: Full Case

• Hicks & Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks (2021) FLC 94-006; [2021] FamCAFC 19 – Reinforced the principle that both parties must provide full and frank disclosure, which was critical given both parties’ failures in this case.

Link: Full Case

• CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67 – Applied to determine the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, with the court ruling that the appellant’s additional evidence was unlikely to alter the outcome.

Link: Full Case

• Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40 – Used to emphasize that appellate courts should intervene only if there is a clear legal or factual error, reinforcing the importance of finality, which influenced the dismissal of the appellant’s claims.

Link: Full Case

• Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 – Cited to underscore that the trial judge’s findings are respected unless demonstrably wrong, supporting the court’s deference to the primary judge’s discretion.

Link: Full Case

• Lacey v Attorney-General (QLD) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10 – Used to highlight the discretionary nature of appellate review and the limited grounds on which the court can intervene.

Link: Full Case

1. Ming & Leong [2020] FamCAFC 10 – Emphasised finality in litigation, influencing the court’s reluctance to reopen the case.

Link: Full Case

1. Ming & Leong [2017] FCCA 65 – Highlighted the history of both parties’ non-compliance with disclosure obligations, relevant to the court’s assessment of their credibility.

1. Ming & Leong [2019] FCCA 1876 – Provided context for the ongoing difficulties in obtaining reliable evidence from both parties.

1. Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd v Lesvos Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 103 – Cited to emphasize that grounds of appeal must be clear and concise, reflecting the court’s criticism of the appellant’s submissions.

Link: Full Case

1. Tame v NSW (2002) 211 CLR 317; [2002] HCA 35 – Reinforced the importance of logical, evidence-based arguments, which the appellant’s case lacked.

Link: Full Case

1. Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85; [2017] HCA 49 – Applied to illustrate the issues caused by unclear and irrelevant grounds of appeal, which impacted the appellant’s case.

Link: Full Case

1. Watapaldeniya v Transport Accident Commission [2022] VSCA 50 – Used to support the court’s finding that the appellant’s grounds of appeal were vague and unsupported, contributing to the dismissal of the appeal.

Link: Full Case

Court’s Findings

1. Non-Disclosure and Miscarriage of Justice: The court determined that the respondent’s failure to disclose the Suburb H property did not result in a miscarriage of justice because:

1.1. The property was purchased six years after separation with the respondent’s                    own resources, with no contribution from the appellant.

1.2. Both parties had repeatedly failed to provide full and frank disclosure                                 throughout the proceedings.

• Exercise of Discretion: Even if a miscarriage of justice had been found, the primary judge would not have exercised discretion to set aside the orders due to the parties’ overall conduct and failure to assist the court.
• Further Evidence: The court refused to admit additional evidence submitted by the appellant because it was available during the original hearing and was unlikely to have altered the outcome.
• Grounds of Appeal: The appellant’s grounds of appeal were largely incomprehensible, verbose, and repetitive, failing to identify any legal, factual, or discretionary error in the primary judge’s decision. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Legal Implications and Precedent Summary
This case reaffirms that not every instance of non-disclosure justifies setting aside property settlement orders. Courts evaluate whether the non-disclosure led to a substantially different outcome, taking into account the timing, context, and conduct of both parties. The decision underscores the importance of presenting clear and concise grounds of appeal, as well as the limited circumstances under which fresh evidence may be admitted, particularly when it could significantly alter the original decision. Additionally, the case highlights the judiciary’s emphasis on maintaining finality in litigation and the high threshold required to overturn established property orders.

Keywords

• Family law
• Property settlement
• Section 79A
• Miscarriage of justice
• Non-disclosure
• Appeal
• Fresh evidence
• Full and frank disclosure
• Judicial discretion

Conclusion and Call to Action

The decision in Ming v Leong illustrates the high threshold required to set aside property settlement orders due to non-disclosure. Both parties’ conduct, timing of asset acquisition, and the absence of contributions are crucial factors. For individuals seeking to challenge property settlements, obtaining expert legal advice is essential to navigate complex legal requirements.

If you need assistance with property settlements, family law appeals, or other family law matters, contact Pentana Stanton Lawyers. Our experienced team can provide expert guidance and representation to help you achieve the best possible outcome.

Schedule a consultation today to discuss your case and explore your legal options.