Chapuys & Chapuys [2025] FedCFamC1F 958 (23 December 2025)

(a) make available to the applicant wife's lawyers a set of keys to the property located at F Street, Region G('[Region G] property') and all vehicles located at the Region G property; and

(b) provide unfettered access to the applicant wife to all areas of the Region G property since 3 April 2025 and in the event that any such items have been sold to a third party purchaser, provide the wife's lawyers with full particulars in writing of the purchaser, the sale price and the location of the sale proceeds.

1. Order 7 made on 5 March 2025 be discharged.
2. Until further order the applicant wife have sole conduct of the sale of the Region G property including all improvements and fixtures and all of the assets held by C Pty Ltd, collectively the "[C] Business".
3. Pursuant to section 106A(1) of the Family Law Act 1975, the Court appoint the Applicant Wife to sign all documents on behalf of the respondent husband in relation to the sale of the Region G property including all improvements and fixtures and all of the assets held by C Pty Ltd, collectively the "[C] Business" including but not limited to the following documents:

(a) Contract of sale and vendor's statement (including Business Contract);

(b) Client Authorisation Form;

(c) Verification of Identity Form;

(d) Duties Forms;

(e) mortgage discharge authorities;

(f) Application documents for Foreign Resident Capital Gains Tax Clearance Certificate on behalf of Mr Chapuys;

(g) removing all caveats held over the Region G property;

(h) removing all PPSR registrations held over the Region G property, including but limited to the Chapuys Family Trust, Mr Chapuys and H Financial Services;

(i) any settlements or rectification plans with the J Council and the Environmental Protection Authority ('EPA').

1. The applicant wife be permitted to provide a copy of these orders to any purchaser or potential purchaser of the C business and any government body or other organisation as may be necessary to complete the sale of the C business.
2. The applicant wife be authorised to request and obtain all correspondence and other relevant documents from the J Council and/ or the Environment Protection Authority ('EPA') for work to be completed for the Region G land and any issues affecting the Region G land and documents relating to the Chapuys Family Trust and/ or the respondent, and this order shall operate as such authority, and the wife be permitted to provide the relevant authority with a copy of these orders.
3. The Applicant wife be authorised by the respondent husband and any entity owned or controlled by him to enter into negotiations and any settlements with the J Council and/or the Environment Protection Authority ('EPA') to resolve any issues affecting the Region G land and this order shall operate as such authority.
4. The applicant wife is permitted to provide a copy of these orders to the J Council and/ or the EPA.
5. Order 8 made on 5 March 2025 be varied to state the following:

(a) upon the settlement of the sale the proceeds be disbursed as follows:

(i) firstly, to pay the costs, commissions and expenses of the sale;

(ii) secondly to discharge the mortgage to L Pty Ltd secured against the Region G property ("the mortgage");

(iii) thirdly, a payment of $389,000 to N Pty Ltd to resolve the Supreme Court of Victoria proceedings with reference number: [redacted];

(iv) fourthly, and not before 21 days of this Order, a payment to Macpherson Kelley in the sum of $106,266.32 for the costs of the commercial litigation matters relating to N Pty Ltd and other litigation involving C Pty Ltd. The husband is at liberty to seek a taxation of this sum within 14 days hereof and in the event he does so, then such funds shall not be paid out until completion of the taxation.

(v) fifthly, pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 the sum of $355,933.09 to the Wife by way of part property settlement; and,.

(vi) sixthly, the balance then remaining to the Macpherson Kelley trust account to be held on trust in an interest-bearing account on behalf of the husband, wife, the Chapuys Family Trust and C P/L pending further order of the Court.

1. The applicant wife be permitted to sign all such documents and do all such things to cause the Registrar of the Personal Property Securities to register a financing change statement amending and removing the security interest registered against C Pty Ltd and in favour of the Respondent Husband as trustee for the Chapuys Family Trust (Registration No. [redacted]) pursuant to section 182 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).
2. The applicant wife be permitted to sign all such documents and do all such things to cause the Registrar of the Personal Property Securities to register a financing change statement amending and removing the security interest registered against C Pty Ltd and in favour of the respondent husband as trustee for the Chapuys Family Trust (Registration No.[redacted]) pursuant to section 182 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).
3. The applicant wife be permitted to sign all such documents and all such things to cause the Registrar of the Personal Property Securities Register to register a financing change statement amending and removing the security interest registered against Chapuys Family Trust and in favour of H Financial Services (Registration No.[redacted]) pursuant to section 182 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).
4. Otherwise, all extant applications are adjourned to a Case Management Hearing before Justice Hartnett on 11 February 2026 at 9:30 am.
5. The matter be listed for trial on 20 April 2026 at 10:00 am.
6. There is leave to the wife to file any number of subpoenas that she determines are necessary.
7. Costs of the applicant wife as sought on an indemnity basis are reserved to trial.

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 the pseudonym Chapuys & Chapuys has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These reasons for judgment support the making of interim property orders on 17 November 2025.
2. The issue for the Court to determine was contained in an Application in a Proceeding filed on 30 October 2025 by the applicant wife ("the wife"). The wife's application sought property orders in relation to the parties' main assets, C Pty Ltd and the property at F Street, Region G ("the Region G property"). The wife is the sole director and secretary of C Pty Ltd which owns and operates the C business. The husband is the registered proprietor on the Certificate of Title for the Region G property, where the C business is situated. The Region G property is owned by the Chapuys Family Trust as claimed by the husband.
3. While the wife is the director of C Pty Ltd, as appointed in June of 2020, the husband always has been the primary operator of the C business. The wife deposed that the husband has always acted as a shadow director.
4. The need for the wife's application arose from the husband's non-compliance with orders made on 5 March 2025. Those orders were, relevantly, as follows:

THE COURT ORDERS, BY CONSENT, THAT:

......

1. The Applicant wife ("the wife") and the Respondent husband ("the husband") each forthwith do all such acts and things as may be necessary to sell ("the sale") the land at [F Street], [Region G] ("the [Region G] property"), including all improvements and fixtures and all of the assets held by [C] Pty Ltd, collectively the "[C] Business".

2. The husband forthwith do all things necessary to remove the caveat held by [N] Pty Ltd against the [Region G] property.

3. Seven days prior to the settlement of the sale, the husband vacate the [Region G] property leaving the said property, all improvements and fixtures and all assets of [C] P/L located on the property in good order.

4. The wife have the exclusive right, to the exclusion of the husband, save that the wife is required to consult with the husband as to the sale and to provide him with 5 business days' notice of any intention to sell the [Region G] property and business assets, to represent [C] P/L and the [Chapuys] Family Trust in relation to all and any negotiations and discussions for the sale of the [Region G] property, the assets of [C] P/L and/or the [C] Business with any potential purchaser including but not limited to [Mr E].

8. Upon the settlement of the sale the proceeds be disbursed as follows:

8.1 Firstly, to pay the costs, commissions and expenses of the sale;

8.2 Secondly, to discharge the mortgage to [L] Pty Ltd secured against the [[Region G] property ("the mortgage");

8.3 Thirdly, the balance then remaining to the Macpherson Kelley trust account to be held on trust in an interest-bearing account on behalf of the husband, wife, the [Chapuys] Family Trust and [C] P/L pending further order of the Court.

1. Time for the husband to make the payment to the wife of $100,000 as provided for by Order 2.2 of the orders made on 30 October 2024 be extended to 4.00pm on Wednesday 12 March 2025.

2. Orders 3.1 and 3.2 of the orders made on 30 October 2025 shall be varied to include all car parts, engine parts and other equipment associated with each of the motor vehicles.

3. Order 9 made on 26 September 2024 be varied to provide that until 4.00pm on Wednesday 12 March 2025:

11.1 The husband shall be permitted to sell either or both of the motor vehicle [1] described in Order 3.1 of the orders made on 30 October 2024 (as varied) and the motor vehicle [2] described in Order 3.2 made on 30 October 2024 (as varied) ("the vehicles") for the sole purpose of giving effect to Order 7 and 9 herein;

11.2 In the event that the husband sells either or both of the vehicles and any car parts, engine parts or other equipment associated with either of them, he shall within 24 hours of any sale provide to the wife:

11.2.1 Full particulars and contact details of any purchasers;

11.2.2 A detailed description of what has been sold including the vehicle, car parts, engine parts or other associated equipment;

11.2.3 Full particulars of the sale price and any terms and conditions;

11.2.4 Copies of all documents relevant to or arising from the said sale(s).

1. In the event of the husband selling either or both of the vehicles and/or car parts, engine parts or other associated equipment, the proceeds of sale shall be applied:

12.1 First, to pay any costs, commissions and expenses of the sale;

12.2 Secondly, to pay to the wife the sum of $100,000 in compliance with Order 2.2 made on 30 October 2025;

12.3 Thirdly, to pay to the husband the sum of $100,000 by way of a part property settlement

12.4 Fourthly, to discharge or partially discharge any debt owed to [Ms B]; and

12.5 Fifthly, the balance then remaining to be held on trust by the husband's solicitors in an interest bearing account on behalf of the husband, wife, the [Chapuys] Family Trust and [C] P/L.

1. Within 48 hours the husband is to provide to the wife via her solicitors a username profile and password to enable her to view all transactions on the "Square" account operated by the Husband into which takings and/or income received by the [C] Business are paid.
2. Within 48 hours the parties are to each cause their solicitors to provide the other party's solicitor with a list of all documents required by way of disclosure and within 7 days of receiving such list each party provide copies of the documents requested.

15. Each party's costs of this day be reserved to the adjourned hearing date.

16. Certify for counsel.

1. There is liberty to the parties to apply on short notice to the chambers of Justice Hartnett for an urgent listing.

1. Although the above orders prescribed the sale of the Region G property, and there has been a willing and ready purchaser, the sale has not been effected. The purchaser, Mr E (on behalf of a number of investors) has spent the latter part of 2025 waiting to purchase the Region G property and the C business. The husband has obstructed and delayed the sale, despite his consent to orders for such sale to occur.
2. The wife's application proceeded on 17 November 2025.
3. There otherwise remain various outstanding issues to be determined at a final hearing.

(a) her Application in a Proceeding filed 30 October 2025;

(b) her affidavits and annexures attached thereto, as filed on 30 October 2025, 13 November 2025 and 15 November 2025.

(c) affidavit of Mr E filed 13 November 2025; and

(d) documents as tendered in evidence during the hearing.

1. The respondent husband ("the husband") did not participate in the hearing. Nor did he file any material responsive to the Application in a Proceeding filed 30 October 2025. On 12 November 2025, the husband's solicitors sent correspondence to chambers requesting leave to withdraw as the husband's legal practitioners, due to their inability to contact the husband and obtain instructions from him, noting his telephone and email had been disconnected. The Court made orders on the same day which granted the husband's solicitors leave to withdraw and excused those solicitors from attending the hearing listed on 17 November 2025. A Notice of Ceasing to Act was subsequently filed by them.
2. In the circumstances, leave was granted to the wife to proceed on an undefended basis.

1. In 1995, the parties commenced their de facto relationship.
2. In June 2020, the wife was appointed as the sole director of C Pty Ltd.
3. In August 2020, the husband signed a contract of sale to purchase the Region G property.
4. In August 2020, the parties signed an assets sale agreement to purchase the C business which was then called another name. The purchase price was $800,000. The contract contained an asset list of items sold to the parties through the purchase of the entity now operating the C business. The contract of sale included motor vehicles, plant and equipment and the domain name of ....com.au, and the Instagram, Facebook, Twitter accounts and mobile phone number. The husband commenced to run the business.
5. In or around January 2021, the Chapuys Family Trust was created.
6. In January 2021, the Region G property was acquired in the husband's sole name as registered on the Certificate of Title on behalf of the Chapuys Family Trust as claimed by the husband.
7. In June 2021, the O Council investigated an incident in which the husband had cut down a 100-year-old tree without the permission of the Council. An Ecological Assessment was conducted by Ms P on behalf of the Council who assessed the land. In accordance with the assessment, C Pty Ltd was required to purchase third party offsets from a credit register.
8. On 7 February 2025, the land at the Region G property was valued at $1,800,000 by the jointly appointed expert valuer, Ms Q of R Valuations.
9. From March 2025, the husband ceased to pay the mortgage instalments secured over the Region G property. The mortgagor is L Pty Ltd.
10. On 10 March 2025, the wife and Mr E attended the Region G property. During this visit, one of the husband's associates handed Mr E a folder of Environment Protection Authority ("EPA") notices that had not previously been disclosed by the husband to the wife. Those documents raised the following list of EPA, Council and other issues (as placed by the wife in dot point form) in respect of the property that needed to be addressed:
    • EPA notices for noise complaints.
    • EPA notices for smoke complaints.
    • EPA notices for waste IBC removal from C business.
    • EPA notices for ALL tyres on the property to be removed and disposed of via a registered environmental waste company.
    • Judgement by VCAT for Council Offset and further assessment for tree removal in car park.
    • Potential revocation of the permit to operate as C business due to excessive noise and EPA matters currently facing.
    • EPA matter involving the toilet block and new septics and treatment farm for the facility.
    • EPA investigation of potentially hazardous waste that may have been buried by the previous owner. If anything is found, a new EPA notice will be issued.
    • Council have terminated the permits to operate the canteen due to white ant infestation that has now deemed the canteen unsafe to operate.
    • Council have condemned the timing office due to unsafe foundations and stumpings.
    • Squatters living in the house on the edge of the boundary present a difficulty for the Council.
    • Major issues with all perimeters fencing and cattle getting into the property from the neighbours. The Council has order that these fences be replaced or repaired.
    • The rural fire service has ordered the creation of fire breaks 30m alongside all boundaries.
11. Subsequently, the wife contacted the EPA to request further information as to the parties' exposure to the above potential liabilities.
12. During March 2025, Ms S, a Senior Environment Protection Officer at EPA Victoria, sent an email addressed to the wife and Mr E. That email outlined the following concerns of the EPA regarding the operations at C business:[1]
    • Noise - A current Improvement Notice is issued to the site (attached), the notice requires development and implementation of a noise risk management and monitoring program. This particularly relates to start/finish times, having a community noise procedure for discussing complaints with community, a noise survey for residents to provide feedback and process for providing feedback.

• Smoke - There is a smoke risk management and monitoring program that was recently developed for the site. It involved developing a procedure to minimise smoke impacts from the burnout pad on nearby residents. When the wind is blowing towards residents (monitored via an onsite weather station), it is expected that burnouts will pause until there is suitable weather conditions. The notice related to this has been revoked, however the expectation that the plan will be implemented remains and forms part of your General Environmental Duty under the Environment Protection Act.
  • Waste - There is a current Environmental Action Notice on the site to remove IBCs and Drums containing wastes from near the burnout pad, these must be removed from the site within 12 months (attached).

There is also a large stockpile of tyres at the site which need to be removed (no notice issued for this).

• EPA has recently conducted a drone flight using ground penetrating radar to determine whether waste has been buried at the site after it was alleged, no results have been provided as yet. There may be an expectation to remove any wastes buried at the site.
  • Septic - The septic system is currently failing, it is believed there is a broken pipe from the septic tanks (x2) to the onsite lagoon storage and waste is currently being periodically pumped out of the tanks directly. A Land Capability Assessment is required to assess the suitability of the current system and provide advice on upgrades required. Council may need to be involved depending on the assessed size and loads required for a new system.

1. To deal with the EPA issues, the wife initially instructed her lawyers when negotiating with Mr E for a sale of the Region G property and the business operated from that property, to include a mechanism in the Region G property sale contract that provided for $300,000 of the purchase price to be held on trust pending the EPA work being done. If the works cost less than $300,000, then the remaining funds would be released to the Chapuys Family Trust as vendor. If the works cost more, Mr E would bear the cost of any extra amount. However, during negotiations with Mr E, it became apparent that the EPA works were going to cost significantly more than $300,000 to remedy. The quotes the wife obtained to rectify the issues totalled $687,725.
2. Throughout the negotiation process between the wife and Mr E, Mr E became increasingly concerned about the proposed mechanism that would require him to provide estimates of the EPA rectification work to the husband, the trustee of the Chapuys Family Trust, for the husband to provide his agreement to the estimate and the works being completed before funds could be released to Mr E. Mr E informed the wife that he did not want to deal with the husband. Accordingly, the wife amended the Region G property sale contract to remove the mechanism for the $300,000 to be held on trust for the resolution of the EPA issues, and otherwise to reduce the purchase price by $300,000. Thus, Mr E would be in control of the $300,000 sum and would not be reliant on the husband providing his agreement to the release of the funds. This alleviated Mr E concerns and allowed the wife and Mr E to proceed to reach agreement on the balance of the terms of the Region G property sale contract.
3. On 3 April 2025, I made orders, including the following:
   1. Until further order or the conclusion of the hearing which is listed to commence on Tuesday 8 April 2025, the Respondent husband by himself and by his servants and agents be and is hereby restrained from selling, disposing of, further encumbering or in any way dealing with any assets owned by [C] Pty Ltd, the [Chapuys] Family Trust or any fixture or fitting currently located at the property at [F Street], [Region G] ("the [Region G] property") without the prior written consent of the Applicant wife or save in the ordinary course of business.
4. Despite the operation of the above order, the husband proceeded to remove various items of property from the C business without the consent of the wife.
5. On 21 July 2025, the C business ceased to operate.
6. On or about 14 August 2025, the wife was advised by a third party that they saw the husband removing solar panels off the roofs of buildings on the Region G property. The wife deposed in her affidavit evidence that the police were called to the property, but that the husband would not allow them onto the premises.
7. On the same day, the wife instructed her lawyers to write to the husband's lawyers about the alleged above incident. No response was received in relation to the incident by the husband or his legal practitioners.
8. On 27 August 2025, an Application in a Proceeding filed by the wife on 15 August 2025 came before the Court. It was adjourned on a part-heard basis to a date to be fixed. No orders were made.
9. During the hearing on 27 August 2025, counsel for the husband submitted that there were various issues regarding the sale of the business and Region G property and the respective contracts of sale, including that:

(1) the vendor in the business sale contract should be the Chapuys Family Trust, not the C business, as the C business did not own any assets or operate any business;

(2) the values attributed to the business assets in the business sale agreement and in negotiations between the wife and Mr E were incorrect, uncommercial and that the wife was dissipating the asset pool; and

(3) the amount of $300,000 which had been negotiated with Mr E as the cost of the required works to comply with the EPA was incorrect and arbitrary.

1. Following the hearing on 27 August 2025, the wife's lawyers wrote to the lawyers of Mr E to seek his agreement and position in relation to the three key issues which the husband's lawyers raised during the hearing, being:

(a) the inclusion of the Chapuys Family Trust as vendor to the business sale agreement;

(b) the large number of assets no longer being included in the business sale; and

(c) the inclusion of the mechanism to hold the $300,000 for EPA issues in trust.

1. On 28 August 2025, the wife's lawyers wrote to the husband's lawyers with the following request:

In the Court hearing yesterday, your client's counsel...advised the Court that the values prescribed to the assets in the Schedule 5 asset list were too high and criticised our client for agreeing to these values.

...

Should Mr [E] somehow be persuaded to change the figures of each of the assets in [S]chedule 5, please advise as a matter of urgency the following:

• On what basis your client seeks the valuations be obtained;
• Who your client proposes to engage to complete the valuations; and
• How your client proposes the valuations be paid for.

There was subsequently no response sent by or on behalf of the husband.

1. On 3 September 2025, the wife's lawyers sent a follow up letter to the husband's lawyers. They advised the husband to provide an urgent response and stated, "these allegations about the overvaluing of the business assets were the basis of the matter not being able to proceed at Court on 27 August 2025 due to various representations made by your client's Counsel".
2. On 8 September 2025, Mr E's lawyers sent a letter in response, in which the requested changes to the Contract of Sale for the Region G property were not agreed.
3. On 10 September 2025, the wife's lawyers again wrote to Mr E's lawyers and sought clarification of why he did not agree to the mechanism for the $300,000 to be held on Trust being reinstated in the Contract, and the purchase price being increased by $300,000.
4. On 10 September 2025, a letter was sent to the husband's legal practitioners, on behalf of Mr K, the director of L Pty Ltd. That letter included the following:

We are instructed that your client is currently in default of his obligations pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement dated 3 February 2022 and the Variation Loan Agreement dated 25 February 2025.

We note your advice that an in principal agreement has been reached for the sale of the [Region G] property.

We are instructed that the sale of the said property has been on going for some time without conclusion.

Accordingly, and in order that our client is in a position to consider the matters contained in your letter, we are instructed to request, as a matter of urgency, that an update be provided as to the progress of the sale of the said property.

In the event that a sale has not been achieved within 14 days, our client shall have no option but to commence proceedings against your client as a result of your client's default under the loan agreement.

1. On 12 September 2025, the husband's legal practitioners sent a letter to the wife's solicitors, which asserted that the wife had not complied with her obligation to consult with the husband about the sale, and requested copies of all correspondence between the wife and Mr E in respect to the sale of the Region G property and business sale negotiations and terms of the contract sale. The husband contested the asset list, and proposed that:

...to ensure whatever amount the sale price may be reduced is accurate market value (rather than over-inflated and arbitrary), the parties must engage an independent valuer to resolve the dispute as to the values of the assets;

To identify which item (if any) require independent valuation, our client will respond to the list included in the proposed contract with Mr [E] (annexed to his most recent affidavit) by noting:

(a) Whether the item listed is at the property;

(b) To the extent the item is at the property, whether he agrees to the value to be adopted; and

(c) Where there is no agreement, an independent valuer be appointed.

1. On 17 September 2025, Mr E's lawyers, responded with a request for amendments to the Business Sale Agreement to ensure that the assets would not be encumbered upon completion and further warranties from the husband that he would not encumber or further encumber the business assets pending completion.
2. On 19 September 2025, the wife's lawyers wrote back that the only encumbrance held over the business and the business assets was the security interest registered on the Personal Property Securities Register ("PPSR") against C Pty Ltd and in favour of the Trustee for the Chapuys Family Trust.
3. On 19 September 2025, the wife's lawyers wrote to Mr Wellington (whose details were registered on the PSSR) and served an Amendment Demand pursuant to s 178 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) requesting the removal of the registration from the PPSR. No response was received.
4. On 22 September 2025, in Mr E's letter in response, his lawyers advised that he did not wish to liaise with the vendor post-completion to enable payment of the rectification works.
5. On 22 October 2025, the wife received a telephone call from Mr E, who advised her that he had received a phone call from Mr AE who had been advised that the husband was attempting to sell the generator held at the property. It was the wife's evidence that the generator was a vital requirement for the operation of the property. In the list of assets that the husband prepared in 2020 there were five generators as follows:

(a) a portable diesel generator with a value of $5,000;

(b) a portable 8kva T Generator with a value of $2,500;

(c) a 150VKA U generator with a value of $5,000.

(d) a 100KVA V generator with a value of $3,000.

(e) 165KVa W Generator (new) with a value of $55,000. This generator is hardwired into the engineering compound and is the main electrical system and provides power to the whole property. The costs of replacing this if it is removed far exceeds the value of $55,000.

1. On 14 November, service of the wife's application was effected on the husband.

1. The wife in her affidavit evidence outlined the agreement with Mr E at [8]:

The agreement with [Mr E] is that he will pay $4.1 million less $468,933.10 owed to [E business], less $300,000 for the EPA clean up costs...less an amount to be deducted for items missing from the business assets list. Even if that amount is $400,000 (although [Mr E] and I have agreed to $390,000), where the land is worth $1,800,000 then [Mr E] is paying a very good price, and probably over market value, for the remaining business assets.

1. The wife has been diligent in her efforts to assess the cost of the EPA works needing to be done. She obtained the following quotes in respect to the completion of some of the EPA works as follows:

(1) The quote from Z business for the removal of Intermediate Bulk Containers ("IBC") and gallons dated 29 July 2024 estimated the work at approximately $99,055. However, this quote did not consider the tyre removal which the EPA advised was required to be done.

(2) The quote dated 1 September 2025 from AB business totals $377,710. This provides for the removal of the "IBC's, gallon drums, burnt tyres and also digging and disposal of buried waste".[2] This is an issue that had been raised by the EPA, but no EPA notice had yet been issued. The quote for the disposal of the IBC's, gallon drums and tyres (without the digging of soil and disposal of buried waste) was approximately $200,000.

(3) The quote dated 29 August 2025 from AC Plumbing for the installation of a septic system estimated that the cost would be approximately $80,960.

(4) The quote from AD Plumbing received 28 August 2025 for the installation of a new septic system estimated that the costs would be approximately $120,000 - $130,000.

1. The above quotes did not include any work required to be done to create and implement a noise risk management and monitoring program as also required by the EPA notices, a fact known to both the vendor and purchaser.
2. The husband's conduct has consistently caused delay in the sale of the Region G property and the C business. That delay has been a cause of great frustration to both the wife and third-party purchaser, Mr E, who have both incurred significant legal fees in the process of negotiating the sale. The husband's suggestion that further valuations be obtained in circumstances where neither the husband nor wife have any capacity to meet such expenditure, was merely a delay tactic.
3. The ongoing viability of the sale was set out in Mr E's affidavit filed 13 November 2025 at [7], as follows:

The other investors have removed funds from their investors to have the funds available for settlement, but due to the constant delays in having [C business] to be sold, I have been advised by my investors if this does not settle over the next few months, they will pull out of the sale. This would cause me to not be able to purchase [C business].

1. Presently, the purchaser remains ready and willing to purchase the Region G property and C business. He has confirmed in his affidavit evidence that he has the funds at his disposal to purchase the property and C business.
2. The settlement of the sale of the property and the business assets was prevented, at the time of hearing, by the following:

(1) the husband's refusal to sign the contract of sale of the Region G property; and

(2) the removal of the H Financial Services PPSR registration, discussed below.

1. The context remains a business that has been shut down since 21 July 2025, and is no longer in operation; mortgage default in respect of the Region G property; the removal of assets by the husband from the business, without the knowledge or consent of the wife, and an anticipated sale of the Region G property and its associated C business as consented to by the parties (orders made 5 March 2025, as amended 3 April 2025). It is an immediate reality that the parties face the depreciating value of the business and property. Further delaying the sale of the business and property, as submitted by the wife, will put the parties at risk of being unable to pay back their numerous creditors, and also put at risk the purchase price that Mr E has negotiated to pay.
2. A risk is also posed by the allegations made against the husband that he is selling assets on the Region G property. The missing assets are important for the operation of the C business.
3. The nature of the property is unique. It is in the parties' interests not to lose a genuine purchaser. The husband appears to be now recognising that fact. He is not opposing the orders as sought by the wife and is content for her to have the control of the property and business sales.

1. Mr E requires that there is no encumbrance over the assets being sold, including that the PPSR registered against C Pty Ltd in favour of the Trustee for the Chapuys Family Trust be removed.
2. The wife's lawyers advised that, at the time of the hearing, a PPSR registration held over C Pty Ltd by the trustee for the Chapuys Family Trust was filed by Mr Wellington, Special Counsel from Roberston Hyetts. Mr Wellington's contact details were provided as the address of service of the PPSR registration. No response was received to the wife's lawyers Amendment Demand to Mr Wellington. The notice period had lapsed at the time of the hearing.
3. There is a further PPSR notification in favour of H Financial Services, the registration number being [redacted]. The wife deposed that H Financial Services were the previous mortgagor of the Region G property. The wife's lawyers have repeatedly sent correspondence to the husband's lawyers to remove the PSSR registration before any sale proceeds.

1. The necessary sale of the Region G property and the C business will likely provide the parties with an asset pool from which an alteration of property interests can be made between the parties. There will also likely be an ability to repay the creditors of the parties or either of them. There is a real risk that further non-compliance and delay on the husband's part will cause the proposed sale to fall through, causing significant detriment to both parties, as well as the wastage of legal fees and time spent on negotiation with an arm's length third party purchaser.
2. The wife's application will be acceded to.

I certify that the preceding fifty-nine (59) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hartnett.

[1] Annexure "KW-14" to the wife's affidavit filed 30 October 2025.

[2] Wife's affidavit filed 30 October 2025, paragraph 43.