FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - a variety of contested interlocutory applications debated ahead of trial.

FAMILY LAW - DERIVATIVE ACTION APPLICATION - hearing of application deferred to 20 April 2025.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 95(2)

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175

Papadopoulos & Papadopoulos (No 2) [2007] FamCA 1683

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

MR J AS LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR MR JESS SNR (DECEASED)

MR JESS JNR & ORS (THE REPRESENTED THIRD PARTIES)

MR K & MR L AS TRUSTEES OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF MR JESS SNR

1. The wife's application for an abridgment of time to bring an urgent application before me is granted.
2. The wife's application for leave to bring her derivative action and her application for the joinder of Ms D Jess sought in paragraph 6(a) of her amended application dated 29 August 2025 is adjourned until 20 April 2026 at 10:00am.
3. The following matters will be heard on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025 -

(a) the notices of objection to the subpoenas filed by the wife (as set out in the Annexure);

(b) the wife's application that the second respondent grant "read-only" access as sought in paragraph 13 of her amended application dated 29 August 2025;

(c) the wife's application that the thirty-sixth respondent grant "read-only" access as sought in paragraph 14 of her amended application dated 29 August 2025;

(d) the wife's application that the second respondent produce the documents described in paragraphs 15(b) to (i) of her amended application dated 29 August 2025; and

(e) any issue as to outstanding material requested by the single expert business valuer (Mr DN of DO Advisors).

1. By 4:00pm on 6 November 2025 any written submissions and supporting affidavit material in support of the notices of objection to the wife's subpoenae set out at 3(a) above be filed and served on all other parties.
2. By 4:00pm on 12 November 2025 the wife must file and serve any written submissions and affidavit material on all other parties -

(a) in response to the notices of objection to the wife's subpoenas; and

(b) in support of the matters set out at 3(b) to (e) above.

1. By 4:00pm on 14 November 2025 any submissions and supporting affidavit material in response or in reply to any material filed by the wife under order 5 be filed and served on all other parties.
2. Any document not filed in accordance with the timetable above is not to be relied on without leave.
3. The second respondent must comply with paragraph 16(a) of my orders made on 9 October 2025 by 4:00pm on 31 October 2025.
4. The time for compliance with paragraph 17 of my orders made on 9 October 2025 is amended to 4:00pm on 31 October 2025.
5. By not later than 4:00pm on 17 March 2026 the wife must file and serve her further amended statement of claim.
6. By not later than 4:00pm on 31 March 2026 all other parties must file and serve their response to the wife's further amended statement of claim including any affidavit material in response.
7. By not later than 4:00pm on 7 April 2026 the wife must file and serve her comprehensive outline of case replacing the outline dated 29 August 2025.
8. By not later than 4:00pm on 14 April 2026 all parties who wish to respond to the wife's comprehensive submissions the subject of paragraph 12 of these orders must file and serve their outline of case, and in the case of the second respondent for that outline to replace his outline dated 31 August 2025.
9. By not later than noon on 17 April 2026 the wife must file and serve -

(a) any submissions in reply to the case outlines of the other parties; and

(b) the joint court book and joint book of authorities.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Jess & Jess has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These reasons address the several contested issues before me on 24 October 2025.

1. By application in a proceeding dated 21 October 2025, the wife applied for a collection of orders. They were as follows -

"1. Pursuant to rule 15.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules (Cth) (2021) all time be abridged and this matter be listed for an urgent hearing before the Honourable Justice Wilson on the next available date prior to Monday, 27 October 2025 (if possible).

1. Orders 5 to 11 made on 9 October 2025 be discharged and the further listing of the Wife's leave applications be adjourned to a date to be fixed (paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Wife's Amended Application dated 29 August 2025).

2. The following matters be set down to be heard before the Honourable Justice Wilson on an estimated duration of two days on 17 November 2025 and 18 November 2025:

(a) the notices of objection to the subpoenas filed by the Wife (as set out in the Annexure);

(b) the Wife's application that [Ms D Jess] be added as a party to the proceeding (paragraph 6(a) of the Wife's Amended Application dated 29 August 2025);

(c) the Wife's application that the Second Respondent grant "read-only" access as sought in paragraph 13 of her Amended Application dated 29 August 2025;

(d) the Wife's application that the Thirty-Sixth Respondent grant "read‑only" access as sought in paragraph 14 of her Amended Application dated 29 August 2025;

(e) the Wife's application that the Second Respondent produce the documents described in paragraphs 15(b) to (i) of her Amended Application dated 29 August 2025;

(f) any issue as to outstanding material requested by the single expert business valuer ([Mr DN of DO Advisors]).

1. By 4:00pm on 31 October 2025 any written submissions and supporting affidavit material in support of the notices of objection to the Wife's subpoenas set out at 3(a) above be filed and served on all other parties.
2. By 4:00pm on 6 November 2025, the Wife file and serve any written submissions and affidavit material on all other parties:

(a) in response to the notices of objection to the Wife's subpoenas;

(b) in support of the matters set out at 3(b) to (f) above

1. By 4:00pm on 12 November 2025, any submissions and supporting affidavit material in response or in reply to any material filed by the Wife under order 5 be filed and served on all other parties.
2. Any document not filed in accordance with the timetable above not to be relied on without leave.
3. The Second Respondent is to comply with order 16(a), made on 9 October 2025, by 4:00pm on 31 October 2025.
4. The time for compliance with order 17, made on 9 October 2025, be amended to 4:00pm on 31 October 2025.

10. Such further and other Orders as this Honourable Court deems appropriate."

1. On 9 October 2025 I ordered that on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025 I would hear the wife's application for leave to bring a derivative action as well as the orders sought in paragraphs one to five of the wife's amended application filed on 29 August 2025. In order to better prepare for the return of the application on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025 I ordered on 9 October 2025 that by 20 October 2025 the wife was required to serve on all parties the proposed thirteenth respondent's statement of claim, the proposed second further amended statement of claim and any further amended application and affidavits in relation to the subject matter of paragraphs one to five of the wife's amended application.
2. Other documents are to be filed from 3 November 2025.

THE HEARING CURRENTLY FIXED FOR 17, 18 AND 19 NOVEMBER 2025

1. On behalf of the wife, counsel appearing on 24 October 2025 formally applied to vacate the hearing of the wife's proposed derivative action application on the dates previously ordered, namely 17, 18 and 19 November 2025. He said the question then became (assuming I agreed to his request) what was to be done on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025 to usefully occupy those dates.
2. Mr Kearney SC on behalf of Mr Jess Jnr submitted that his client wanted to maintain those three dates. Mr Kearney submitted -

(a) the wife's application for leave to bring a derivative action had been listed pursuant to orders made on 20 June 2025 and for a second time on 1 September 2025;

(b) the wife's legal representatives were in a position to prosecute the application for leave to bring the derivative action on 1 and 2 September and could have done so but for the actions of Mr Jess Jnr in his late filing of material ahead of the return date;

(c) the wife has failed to file her amended statement of claim in the derivative action, whether by 20 October 2025 or at all; and

(d) tracing is the end result of the application for leave to bring the derivative action.

1. Those submissions were set against a factual backdrop to which Mr AL deposed in his 21 October 2025 affidavit. Relevantly paraphrased, Mr AL stated that prior to his affidavit of 19 August 2025 being filed, Mr AL and the wife's legal representatives -

(a) identified that unauthorised distributions totalling $281,416,660 had been made by X Pty Ltd ("[X Pty Ltd]") and by X3 Pty Ltd ("[X 3 Pty Ltd]") when each was trustee of the Jess Retail Unit Trust ("[JRUT]");

(b) dividends had been declared resulting in payments being made from BD1 Pty Ltd ("[BD1]") to BE1 of $85,155,000, from BN1 Pty Ltd to BE1 of $5,690,000 and from BD1 to BP Pty Ltd of $3,500,000;

(c) the property at DT Street, Suburb DU represented traceable proceeds of the Y Supply Business as -

(i) on 13 June 2023 BD1 paid BE1 $23,000,000 as a dividend;

(ii) on 14 June 2023 BE1 transferred $14,350,000 to BP Pty Ltd; and

(iii) on 14 June 2013 BP Pty Ltd transferred $14,327,036 to DK Lawyers which sum was used to purchase that property;

(d) the property at DV Street, Suburb DB represented tractable proceeds of the Y Supply Business as -

(i) on or about 13 June 2023 BD1 paid BE1 the sum of $23,000,000 as a dividend;

(ii) on or about 15 June 2023 BE1 transferred $39,000,000 to BP Pty Ltd; and

(iii) on or about 16 June 2023 BP Pty Ltd transferred $49,337,614 to DK Lawyers which sum was used to purchase that property;

(e) since 19 August 2025 the wife's legal representatives have continued the tracing exercise and have identified that the properties set out before had been purchased by applying funds from JRUT or BD1 -

(i) DW Street, Suburb DB, purchased for $8,200,000;

(ii) DX Street, Suburb CZ purchased for $2,900,000;

(iii) DY Street, Suburb DB purchased for $7,000,000;

(iv) DZ Street, City EA, NSW purchased for $4,010,000;

(v) EB Street, Suburb DB purchased for $7,500,000;

(vi) EC Street, Town ED, QLD purchased for $3,080,000;

(vii) EF Street, Suburb EG, WA purchased for $2,062,500; and

(viii) EH Street, Suburb EJ, NSW purchased for $3,050,000;

(f) the wife's counsel had been retained to plead claims set out in the proposed second further amended statement of claim as well as in the derivative action statement of claim;

(g) based on the tracing work already undertaken further amendments will be required in respect of transactions awaiting elucidation once documents in response to subpoenae are produced;

(h) up to $300,000,000 may be traced;

(i) that amount and the transactions relevant to it may be included in the proposed second further amended statement of claim and in the proposed derivative action statement of claim;

(j) since the hearing on 2 September 2025 the wife has issued nine subpoenae which the wife continues to press;

(k) there are 18 notices of objection on foot, 17 of which relate to the recent subpoenae; and

(l) on 25 September 2025 Mr DN requested further documents to enable him to prepare an accurate fees estimate, yet the wife does not have in her possession, power or control any of the documents requested by Mr DN whereas Mr Jess Jnr appears to have them, according to Mr AL.

1. One of the main arenas of debate on 24 October related to requiring the wife to debate the application for leave to bring the derivative action on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025. On behalf of Mr Jess Jnr, Mr Kearney SC pressed forcefully for orders maintaining the current regime. Conversely, the wife's legal representatives have made it perfectly plain that they are presently not in a position to advance the application for leave to bring the derivative proceeding for the simple reason that the best version of the pleading to support it, and for that matter, the best version of the further amended statement of claim is not presently formulated and will not be until completion of the tracing exercise currently under way.
2. Dr Turner, counsel for the wife, put forward the notion that his client was only able to provide pleadings in what he called "a mature form" by 17 March 2026.[1] By that date Dr Turner submitted that the tracing exercise currently underway would be completed, disclosure would be completed and the task of converting the resultant factual scenario into pleadings would be done.
3. Mr Shaw KC submitted that the application for leave to bring the derivative action should not be deferred, consistent with the wife's position as submitted on behalf of the wife on 1 September 2025. Mr Shaw contended that on the application on 1 September, he advocated for the provision by the wife of an amended pleading by 20 October with a view to the application for leave to bring the derivative action being heard shortly thereafter. Mr Shaw submitted that his client now finds itself in a situation where the foreshadowed amended pleading that was to be delivered by 20 October has not been delivered and instead, the wife now says she needs (to use Mr Shaw's words on 24 October) "to do a whole lot more things and I've got to do a much more complicated pleading. We can't possibly have the leave application until that's done and I need until 17 March".[2] Mr Shaw added that on 1 September 2025, the wife was talking about a trial date in the middle of 2026."
4. Mr Shaw KC further submitted that a contention to the effect that pleadings cannot be finalised until objections to subpoenae are ruled on inverts the proper sequence of events. Mr Shaw contended that the application for leave to bring the derivative proceeding application should be determined before the subpoenae issues are addressed for the simple reason that leave to bring the derivative action may be refused in which case the subpoenae become irrelevant. Mr Shaw argued that the last proposition was an important consideration in case management issues. In addition, Mr Shaw submitted that a threshold consideration will be the wife's standing to bring the application for leave to bring the derivative action.
5. Ms Papaleo of counsel for the trustees in bankruptcy submitted that her client did not consent to the wife's position nor did the trustees oppose it.
6. So far as Mr CT's position was concerned, Mr Petrie submitted that evidence was before me about Mr CT's grave health. I disputed that with Mr Petrie pointing out to Mr Petrie that Mr CT's solicitor had purported to paraphrase a medical opinion in circumstances where the medical opinion should have been given by direct evidence from the relevant practitioner. It was not.
7. Be that as it may, a curious position was adopted on behalf of Mr CT. Having informed me on 1 September 2025 that the gravity of Mr CT's medical circumstances was such that he needed time to fully acquaint himself with this litigation, there being no evidence of what had been done by Mr CT to actively acquaint himself with this litigation in the time between 1 September and 24 October, Mr Petrie submitted that Mr CT was entitled to have the derivate leave application heard expeditiously "and not be pushed off in the manner that the wife now proposes" (Mr Petrie's words).[3] I asked Mr Petrie what role Mr CT was to play in this litigation in view of his health. After being pressed to respond, Mr Petrie told me he was not in a position to answer my question. Mr Petrie told me he expected, based on his instructions, that Mr CT will file submissions and "very confined evidence" (Mr Petrie's words).[4]
8. Those submissions on behalf of Mr CT were set against a backdrop where Mr CT was said on 1 September 2025 to have cancer, that he was seriously ill and that it would take him some time to acquaint himself with this litigation and then, on 24 October 2025 he pushed for expeditious in the hearing of the application for leave to bring the derivative action.
9. In an endeavour to making best use of court time already earmarked for this case on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025, counsel for the wife argued that subpoenae objections can be addressed on those days. He submitted that the wife's application for leave to bring the derivate action should not proceed on 17, 18 and 19 November. That was because -

(a) the wife has been unable to plead her available claims as fully and as well as she wishes;

(b) if she is forced to proceed with the application for leave to bring her derivative action claim on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025 she will almost certainly be forced to amend her pleadings again thereby adding to the costs of this litigation and prolonging its duration; and

(c) before being required to formally commence her application for leave to bring her derivative action proceeding the wife is entitled to investigate source documents and examine financial records and ascertain whether by such investigation and examination her contentions are corroborated or refuted.[5]

1. Counsel for the wife submitted that it was consistent with the imperatives in s 95(2) of the Family Law Act for her application for leave to bring the derivative proceeding to be determined justly and in a timely manner which cannot be achieved if she is required to proceed with her application prior to all examinations of issues raised by documents produced have been fully considered.
2. Counsel for the wife submitted that her prospects of properly and exhaustively pleading her case will be improved when the objections to subpoenae are dealt with. According to Mr AL some entities on which subpoenae have been served have indicated that the task of producing documents may take between two and four months.
3. The position of Mr Jess Jnr on the use to which the dates 17, 18 and 19 November could be put has already been addressed.

1. The first issue is whether the wife should be required to bring her application for leave to commence a derivative action on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025. She says she is not ready to do so. The wife says she will have a better case on which to rely if she has more time to prepare her case and by then she will have documents produced by subpoena.
2. Save for the forensic advantage the second respondent wishes to obtain in forcing the wife on with her application for leave to bring her derivative action proceeding on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025, I am unable to see any or any particular detriment to the respondents if the wife's application for leave to bring her derivative action is deferred until 20 April 2025. Whether she is presently at risk of being unsuccessful in any such application I cannot say. Mr Shaw KC made it plain on 24 October 2025 that the wife's standing was likely to be a significant issue on the return of that application, whenever the debate is actually held. In the period intervening between 17, 18 and 19 November and 17 March 2026, subpoenae material may emerge thereby increasing the possibility that the latest iteration of the further amended statement of claim and of the statement of claim for the derivative action will improve.
3. In those circumstances, the question becomes whether the wife should be forced to present her application for leave to bring a derivative action on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025. The respondents appear to detect a forensic advantage inuring in their favour if they do press for the wife to present her application in respect of her derivative action. That is most likely explicable on the basis that the respondents are of opinion that the wife will fail in obtaining leave to bring her derivative action if the wife is forced to argue the application on 17, 18 and 19 November. Yet the respondents are unable to point to prejudice they will suffer unless the wife actually presents her derivate leave application on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025. It is fair to proceed on the basis that there will be no prejudice whatever to the respondents if the wife's application for leave to bring her derivative action is heard on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025 or on 20 April 2026. Conversely, her position may (repeat, may) improve by 20 April 2026 because by then -

(a) her latest iteration of her further amended statement of claim is likely to be to hand; and

(b) documents produced by subpoena will have emerged by then.

1. Against that is the position of Mr Kearney's client, namely, that the wife should be required to bring her application for leave to commence her derivative action and to do so now as she should have brought that application on 1 September.
2. It is true that the trial date fixed for 2 June 2025 came and went since which date the derivative action proceeding application has emerged. It is also true that the amount involved in the derivative proceeding is in the vicinity of $300,000,000 - on any view, a very large sum of money. To my mind it is understandable for the wife's legal representatives to contend that it will take a little time for the task of synthesising, arranging, collating and presenting a derivative action proceeding to go forward in which the proceeds of tracing might amount to a sum as large as $300,000,000. In my view, it is no answer to such a contention for a respondent to say that the derivative action application should have been argued on 1 September, that respondents were ready, willing and able to meet that application on that day so the applicant should be refused more time to get her house in order so as to bring that application slightly later.
3. This is a court of equity. Proscriptive and immovable time stipulations are antithetical to doing justice in an even-handed manner to all parties.
4. I am prepared to allow the debate for leave to bring the derivative action to go ahead on 20 April 2026. Further, in the context of litigation that has been on foot for as long as has this case, the grant of what in reality amounts to an extension for less than three months (year end court closure intervening) is far from unreasonable.
5. There remains the issue of the matters to be addressed on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025. An obvious response is subpoenae. Certain respondents have indicated that questions arising from subpoenae should await delivery of the final iteration of the applicant's further amended statement of claim. They say that only when the further amended statement of claim is finally settled and circulated will it be possible to know the full breadth of the issues that the pleadings raise. They further say that only when they have the final version of the further amended statement of claim will they know what is relevant for the resolution of subpoenae issues.
6. I do not agree. Pleadings, while in a state of fluidity, are sufficiently advanced that issues germane to the determination of subpoenae issues can be assessed even as at the date on which the debate is conducted. The wife's legal representatives have already stated that a further iteration of the statement of claim will emerge. No reason exists why all other parties should not treat the current version of the existing iteration of the further amended statement of claim as being the currently prevailing iteration on which the wife is proceeding, at least for the debate about subpoenae to go forward. If other documents subsequently become important by reason of matters raised in a later iteration of the further amended statement of claim, then their relevance can be enlivened in the hereafter. That said, I see no good reason to waste the allocation of three court days on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025.
7. The joinder of Ms D Jess sought in paragraph 6(a) of the wife's amended application dated 29 August 2025 was an application the wife wished debated on 17 November 2025. Mr Shaw KC submitted that such joinder should await the provision of the latest iteration of the further amended statement of claim. In common law courts, ordinarily in a proposed joinder application the precise basis of the joinder is elucidated by the provision of a proposed statement of claim where the basis of the joinder is set out along with the relief claimed. Where multiple causes of action pleaded give rise to monetary relief of differing amounts, the statement of claim ordinarily records the particular ground on which a certain sum is sought and if that is different to some other additional sum sought the statement of claim usually sets out the basis of that other, different sum sought. In this case, the tracing exercise is likely to yield different sums referrable to different persons. The further amended statement of claim must differentiate between sums sought against different respondents.
8. In those circumstances, I take the view that the joinder application of Ms D Jess must await the wife's formulation of her final iteration of her further amended statement of claim, which according to Dr Turner will be shortly prior to 17 March 2026.
9. The application in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the wife's amended application dated 29 August 2025 have been stood over to 17, 18 and 19 November 2025. No debate was raised on those matters on 24 October 2025. In those circumstances, those issues will be agitated on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025.
10. The matter raised by paragraph 3(e) of the wife's application in a proceeding dated 21 October 2025 was not seriously pressed on 24 October 2025. It related to the wife's application for Mr Jess Jnr to produce documents enumerated in paragraph 15(b) to (i) of the wife's amended application dated 29 August 2025. The point was not agitated by Dr Turner.

1. Mr Kearney SC handed up a document that was based on the orders made on 9 October 2025 to which proposed amendments were made based on the competing positions of the parties. That document differed from the wife's application in a proceeding dated 21 October 2025. I propose to make orders that follow the orders sought in the wife's 21 October 2025 application, although in the process certain aspects of the orders made on 9 October 2025 became relevant.
2. In paragraph 1 of the wife's 21 October 2025 application she sought an abridgment of time for the hearing of an urgent application before me. That order was granted. In paragraph 2 of the wife's 21 October application she sought orders discharging the orders made in paragraphs 5 to 11 of the 9 October 2025 orders. Those orders of 9 October 2025 were headed "wife's leave applications". They related to timetabling steps to ensure completion of activities relevant to the wife's application for leave to bring her derivative application. In the various orders between paragraphs 5 and 11 of the 9 October 2025 orders the parties were required to undertake tasks from 20 October 2025 to 14 November 2025. The steps related to the provision of up-to-date pleadings (to be completed by 27 October 2025) to the provision of comprehensive submissions (to be completed by 14 November 2025). The wife sought orders discharging the orders recorded in paragraph s 5 to 11 of the 9 October 2025 orders.
3. In my view and on the grounds recorded in the earlier portions of these reasons I take the view that the wife's application for leave to bring the derivative action should be heard on 20 April 2026 rather than on 17, 18 and 19 November 2025. It follows that orders must be made replacing the dates for amended pleadings and for comprehensive case outlines so as to ensure that all requisite documents are filed and served once the wife files and serves her final iteration of her further amended statement of claim.
4. Dr Turner gave 17 March 2026 as the date when his team would have the latest iteration of the further amended statement of claim to hand. There remained the date for the debate about leave to bring the derivative action application. In my view, two weeks after 17 March the respondents should file their pleadings and three weeks after that the application should be heard, namely 20 April or thereabouts, with provision being made in order for the filing and service of case outlines.
5. The next issue is whether and if so for what purpose the dates 17, 18 and 19 November 2025 should be preserved. In my view, those dates should be preserved. Finding court time in a busy court is not easy.[6] Those dates have already been secured. They should not be lost. To my way of thinking, the issues set out in paragraph 3 of the wife's application in a proceeding dated 21 October 2025 should be addressed between 17, 18 and 19 November 2025 save for the application to add Ms D Jess as a party. For reasons earlier explained, that application should await the wife's filing and service of her final iteration of her further amended statement of claim, fixed for 17 March 2026.
6. With a view to ensuring that the three days fixed between 17 and 19 November are used most expeditiously, the parties must file and serve all relevant affidavits and submissions on all or any issue to be agitated on the three days allocated. Accordingly, the activities set out in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the wife's 21 October 2025 application in a proceeding must be undertaken according to the dates set out in the application, save that the date in paragraph 4 needs changing to 6 November, the date in paragraph 5 needs changing to 12 November and the date in paragraph 6 needs changing to 14 November.
7. In accordance with paragraph 7 of the wife's 21 October 2025 application in a proceeding I order that any document not filed in accordance with the timetable above is not to be relied on without leave.
8. In accordance with paragraph 8 of the wife's 21 October 2025 application in a proceeding I order that the second respondent must comply with paragraph 16(a) of my orders made 9 October 2025 by 4:00pm on 31 October 2025.
9. In accordance with paragraph 9 of the wife's 21 October 2025 application in a proceeding I order that the time for compliance with paragraph 17 of my orders made 9 October 2025 is amended to 4:00pm on 31 October 2025.

I certify that the preceding forty-one (41) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Wilson.

(There were also notices filed by (i) Mr Jess Jnr dated 15.05.25 (dismissed) and (ii) Ms C Jess dated 15.05.25 (not pressed))

3. Mr EK (in his capacity as director of EL Holdings Pty Ltd) filed 01.10.25

6. Mr EK (in his capacity as director of EL Holdings Pty Ltd) filed 01.10.2025

AAA PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BBB TRUST (ACN ...)

CCC PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF THE DDD TRUST (ACN ...)

X PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF THE JESS RETAIL UNIT TRUST (ACN ...)

SSS PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF TTT INVESTMENT TRUST (ACN ...)

BL PTY LTD (ACN ...) IN ITS OWN CAPACITY AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE JESS PROPERTIES TRUST

EEE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN ...) IN ITS OWN CAPACITY AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE EEE TRUST

BA3 PTY LTD (ACN ...) IN ITS OWN CAPACITY AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BA3 TRUST

BK1 PTY LTD (ACN ...) IN ITS OWN CAPACITY AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BX TRUST

X 3 HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN ...) IN ITS OWN CAPACITY AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE JESS RETAIL UNIT TRUST

[1] Transcript 24 October 2025, page 10 line 42.

[2] Transcript 24 October 2025, page 18 lines 36 - 39.

[3] Transcript 24 October 2025, page 22 line 16.

[4] Transcript 24 October 2025, page 24 line 20.

[5] Papadopoulos & Papadopoulos (No 2) [2007] FamCA 1683 (at [57] Cronin J).

[6] Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175.