Eccheli & Eccheli (No 7) [2025] FedCFamC1F 333 (16 May 2025)

(a) An amount to pay any mortgage or secured liability on the title of the property;

(b) Real estate agents' commission and fees incurred on the sale;

(c) Legal costs and disbursements incurred on the sale;

(d) Taxation and revenue imposts incurred on the disposal;

(e) Statutory outgoings adjusted on settlement; and

(f) Other payments to be made pursuant to the terms of the contract for sale or any lease agreement;

to be deposited into an interest-bearing account held by Q Pty Ltd, the husband being restrained in his personal capacity and his capacity as the director of Q Pty Ltd from doing any act or thing to withdraw, encumber, apply or adversely affect the monies in such account, save with the agreement of the husband and wife in writing, and to do all such things as are necessary to ensure that the instructions creating the interest bearing account provides for each party to have view access to the account.

1. Within 72 hours of the making of these orders or within 24 hours of any such appointment or instructions given, whichever is the earlier, the husband shall do all things to disclose to the wife's solicitor in writing of the identity and contact details of the appointed agent and the solicitor or conveyancer instructed to act on the sale of EE Property, the wife to provide a copy of these orders to any agent, solicitor or conveyancer appointed or acting on the sale of EE Property.

1. Pending further order, on condition that the wife file an undertaking as to damages, Order 5 of the orders dated 12 April 2024 be amended to the following effect:

(a) Other than in accordance with these orders, the husband and wife be, and hereby are, restrained from selling, further encumbering, transferring, or in any other way dealing with, or diluting their interests in, any real estate in the name of the husband or the wife's, the joint names of the parties, or in the name of any commercial entity or trust in which either party is a director or shareholder, without providing the other party less than 28 days' notice in writing of that party's intention to do so, and providing all relevant particulars and documents as to the intended dealing with full and frank disclosure at the same time as notice is being provided.

1. In the event that the property at F Street, Suburb G QLD ("the F Street property") is not sold at the First Auction pursuant to Order 5.16 made on 4 April 2025, the wife is to instruct the agent to market the F Street property for sale by public auction (the "Second Auction") with the agent on a date within six weeks of the date of the First Auction at a reserve price five per cent below the reserve price at the First Auction.
2. In the event that the reserve price set for the Second Auction is not reached, the wife or her nominee will negotiate with the highest bidder and the second highest bidder and will accept the highest offer to purchase made within five per cent of the reserve price set for the Second Auction.
3. In order to give effect to the sale of the F Street property, the wife is to:

(a) Execute the contract for sale in such terms as recommended by the conveyancer; and

(b) Execute all other documents necessary to complete the sale within the time required by the contract for sale to ensure that the purchasers do not have a right to terminate or rescind due to failure to do so.

1. The parties are to co-operate in every way with the agent in relation to the sale of the F Street property at all times as requested by the agent and ensure that the F Street property is in a neat and clean condition.

1. On the settlement of the sale of the F Street property, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:

(a) Payment of the agent's commission, marketing and advertising costs;

(b) Payment of the legal costs of sale to the conveyancer;

(c) Payment of any amount outstanding to any water authority, local council or strata in respect of the F Street property not otherwise taken up as a credit in favour of the vendor;

(d) Payment to the wife's solicitor's trust account in the amount of $750,000 for litigation funding to the wife, such funds not to be applied for any other purpose save with the agreement of the husband in writing;

(e) Payment to the wife of $500,000 by way of partial property distribution; and

(f) Payment of the balance into a controlled monies account on behalf of the wife to be held by her solicitor pending further order or agreement in writing between the husband and the wife.

1. Within seven days of the date of these orders, the husband is to disclose to the wife a list of all artworks owned by the parties, or either of them, or on behalf of either of them by any entity or other person for which they hold an interest, together with any document or certificate relating to each artwork and the precise location details and access information for each artwork.
2. Within 14 days of the date of these orders, the wife is to nominate three proposed single expert valuers pursuant to ch 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to value the artworks, and within seven days thereafter the husband select one from that list. If the husband fails to make a selection within seven days, the wife will nominate the valuer, and the valuer is appointed as at that date.
3. Within 14 days of such nomination, the wife is to prepare a draft joint letter of instruction to the nominated valuer, who shall be appointed as a ch 7 single expert, for the husband's review and the husband is to respond with any required amendments within seven days of receipt of the draft letter. If the husband fails to respond within seven days, the wife is to sign the letter on behalf of both parties and send the letter without amendment to the valuer, together with a copy of these orders.
4. The parties are to cooperate with all requests made by the valuer including providing access to each artwork and the provision of any documents as may be requested.

1. Subject to obtaining the consent of Ms C Eccheli in writing, the husband and the wife shall forthwith do all acts and things necessary to direct and authorise Swaab Attorneys to apply the balance of the proceeds of sale after compliance with Order 8 made on 8 May 2025 to be applied in the following priority:

(a) In payment of an amount sufficient to discharge the arrears of strata levies and outgoings payable pursuant to Order 2 made 12 April 2024 agreed in the sum of $24,312 at 8 May 2025; and

(b) In payment of the balance to the wife.

1. Except as provided for by these orders, the husband's Application in a Proceeding filed on 2 December 2024 as subsequently amended, his Application in a Proceeding filed on 21 March 2025 as amended on 24 April 2025, and the wife's Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed on 10 March 2025 and sealed on 11 March 2025 are dismissed.
2. The costs of each the husband and the wife of, and incidental to, the Applications and Responses determined by way of the orders made on 8 May 2025 and these orders are reserved.
3. On or before 6 June 2025 each of the husband and the wife are to file and serve an undertaking of disclosure in compliance with ch 6 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). In the event either the husband or the wife fails or neglects to comply with this order, or make any application to extend time to comply with it, they are on notice that the court may, on its own motion, dismiss the substantive relief of the party in default.
4. The proceeding be listed for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing in person before the docket judge at 9.30 am on 5 September 2025.
5. The proceeding be listed before a senior judicial registrar for case management hearing as to the progress of instructions to any ch 7 single experts and any other procedural disputes or issues on 26 June 2025 at 10.00 am.

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

1. Mr Eccheli ("the husband") and Ms Eccheli ("the wife") are engaged in litigation pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") as to the adjustment of their property commenced upon the husband filing an Initiating Application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) on 21 February 2024. On 22 February 2024 the proceedings were transferred to this Court. On 22 March 2024 the wife filed a Response to an Initiating Application seeking different orders adjusting that property. Since the proceeding was transferred from Division 2, it has been in the docket of, and managed by, Schonell J.
2. The wife was born in 1965 and is currently 59 years old. The husband was born in 1965 and is also 59 years old. They commenced cohabitation in 1990 and married in 1992. There are three children of the marriage, Ms N who was born in 1993 and is currently 31 years old, Ms C Eccheli who was born in 1995 and is currently 29 years old, and Mr P who was born in 1999 and is currently 26 years old. The husband and the wife effected a separation in December 2015. An order for divorce was made in 2017.
3. On 15 December 2016, the husband commenced proceedings for property settlement (SYC8378/2016). By way of judgment delivered and orders made on 11 April 2017, the wife received $7 million. The husband says that the proceedings "settled on 4 May 2018". The evidence implicitly concludes the resolution of those proceedings was by way of discontinuance on the reconciliation of the husband and the wife. In 2019 they remarried. On 17 November 2023 they effected a final separation.
4. Eleven sets of orders have been made by Schonell J in these proceedings to date, some consensually and others on a defended basis. Three sets of orders have been made by other delegated judicial officers. On 29 April 2025 the husband made an application to Schonell J for he to disqualify himself from further hearing the proceeding. That application is part-heard and was next listed on 14 May 2025.
5. On 8 May 2025 the current mushrooming raft of interlocutory and enforcement applications of the parties (other than the disqualification application made by the husband) were transferred by Schonell J to me for determination. This round of the dispute was initially commenced by the husband's Application in a Proceeding filed on 2 December 2024 as subsequently amended, his Application in a Proceeding filed 21 March 2025 as amended on 24 April 2025, and the wife's Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 10 March 2025 and sealed on 11 March 2025. The relief sought by these interlocutory applications have been overtaken by some determinations made by Schonell J and by other events. The final version of the interlocutory relief as sought by the husband (except the application for disqualification of Schonell J) listed for hearing on 8 May 2025 is that as contained in his Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 24 April 2025. The final version of the enforcement and interlocutory relief as sought by the wife listed for hearing on 8 May 2025 is that contained in Exhibit 3.
6. During the hearing before me on 8 May 2025 the following orders were made finalising portions of the interlocutory relief sought by each of the husband and the wife:
   1. The husband's application for leave to amend his Initiating Application filed on 21 February 2024 is dismissed.
   2. The husband's application to join [Ms N] to the proceedings is dismissed.
   3. The husband be granted leave to withdraw the relief identified in paragraph 3 and 4 of his Application in a Proceeding filed 24 April 2025 as to the sale of [D Street, Suburb E] NSW ("the [Suburb E] Property") and the application of those proceeds of sale.
   4. The wife have leave to withdraw her relief seeking discharge of order 3 made 12 April 2024 for the husband to have exclusive occupation of the property at [F Street, Suburb G] QLD ("the [F Street] property"), the husband now having vacated that property.
   5. The wife be granted leave to withdraw any further relief for s 77 urgent spousal maintenance including but not limited to that identified in paragraph 3 in Exhibit 3.
   6. The wife be granted leave to withdraw her application for maintenance payable by the husband for the benefit of the now adult child of the parties, [Mr P] born [...] 1999, as contained in paragraphs 26 and 27 of Exhibit 3.

The [F Street] property Caveat

7. By consent:

(i) On or before close of business 12 May 2025 the husband shall do all such things as are necessary to withdraw any application or request made to Titles Queensland pertaining to or relating to the lodgement of a caveat on the title of the [F Street] property and to otherwise comply with any reasonable request made by Titles Queensland to ensure that any reference to caveat on the title of that property be removed;

(ii) On or before close of business 13 May 2025, the husband disclose to the solicitors for the wife correspondence verifying his compliance with Order 7(i) and any response received from Titles Queensland;

(iii) Pending further order the husband be restrained from doing any act or thing to directly or indirectly cause a caveat to be lodged on the title of the [F Street] property, the husband having leave to apply on 7 days' notice to vary this order.

The [H Street] property

1. By consent, as between the husband and wife and subject to obtaining the consent of [Ms C Eccheli], born [...] 1995 in writing, the parties are to do all such things as are necessary to cause the balance of proceeds of sale of the property at [H Street, Suburb J], QLD ("the [H Street] Property") currently held by Swaab Attorneys in the sum of $35,913.90 to be applied forthwith in payment of any amount payable to [GG Council] by way of outstanding council rates in respect of the [Suburb E] property including but not limited to interest that has accrued on the arrears and any legal fees incurred by the [GG Council] relating to its Statement of Claim filed 14 March 2025 or fees including the council's costs in enforcing payments for outstanding council rates.

...

1. Order 8 made 8 May 2025 did not quell the balance of the controversary as to the application of the balance of the monies held in the Swaab Attorneys trust account from the sale of a property at H Street, Suburb J ("the H Street property").
2. These reasons assume familiarity with reasons delivered on 8 May 2025 (Eccheli & Eccheli (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 301). They determine the balance of disputed enforcement and interlocutory relief of each of the husband and the wife except as to the application for disqualification and as to costs.

1. The husband is a real property developer. He is employed by Q Group. The Group holds and engages in the development of commercial and retail real properties. The wife is not employed, her evidence being that she has not been consistently employed since 1993. The broad tenor of the case of each party is that the marriage dynamic developed such that the husband adopted a primary role of income earner for the family during the marriages and the wife was primarily engaged in a role as a homemaker and primary carer of the children.
2. The wife contends that the property of the parties is broadly valued at greater than $20 million and ought to be adjusted 70 per cent to her and 30 per cent to the husband. The husband contends that the property of the parties is valued in the range of $8 million. He initially contended that it ought to be adjusted 55 per cent in his favour and 45 per cent to the wife. He now contends that it ought to be adjusted as to 70 per cent in his favour and 30 per cent to the wife given "the short period of the second marriage and [as he] created the assets that were bought into and created during the second marriage and have since reduced in value during the period of the second marriage". It is broadly his case that he created significant property during the years of the separation from 25 August 2015 to August 2018.
3. The husband's Financial Statement filed on 16 April 2024 records the Q Group comprising a significant number of corporations and unit trusts that have extensive interests in real properties. The Q Group manages the unit trusts that in turn hold the real properties interests. It oversees and manages the assets of each respective unit trust, receiving management fees for these services.
4. The wife submits, and I accept in circumstances where the husband does not put it into issue for this interlocutory determination, that the Financial Statement of the husband filed on 13 March 2025 (Exhibit 8) identifies the various asset group structures and corporate entities of the husband as well as the various directors, shareholders, and appointors of those entities.
5. The husband's financial circumstances present with significant complexity. He gives evidence as to acquiring "assets belonging to myself and other shareholder investors, managed by the [Q Group]". A primary holding corporation of the Q Group is Q Group Pty Ltd. That holding corporation is an asset of, and wholly owned by, the Eccheli Family Trust.
6. The husband concedes the Eccheli Family Trust is his property amenable to adjustment in the s 79 dispute. He is the principal, being the person who can appoint and remove trustees. He also is the principal and primary beneficiary of the HH Discretionary Trust that in turn owns other unit trust and corporate interests within the Q Group.
7. The gross value of the real property interests of the Q Group is significant. The husband gives evidence as to indirectly holding within the Group:

(a) A 51.07 per cent share of the EE Property shopping centre purchased in mid-2017 for $33.5 million, valued at $44.1 million, and subject to a liability of $44.5 million. The wife identifies that in an affidavit filed by the husband on 2 December 2024, in his Financial Statement filed on 21 February 2024, and repeated in a letter from his solicitor dated 26 July 2024, he estimated this property to be valued, on an 'as is' basis between $41 and $50 million;

(b) A 57.37 per cent share of JJ Property acquired on in mid-2020 for $1.6 million, valued at $22 million, and subject to a liability of $19 million;

(c) A 70.43 per cent share of KK Property acquired for $45.8 million in mid-2022, currently valued at $27 million, and subject to a liability of $27.6 million; and

(d) A 66.6 per cent share of LL Property purchased in mid-2017 for $6.3 million, currently valued at $5.1 million, and subject to a liability of $5.3 million.

1. The husband identifies a personal interest by way of the AA Family Trust. It is a discretionary trust of which he is the principal and primary beneficiary. The Trust, by way of its trustee AA Pty Ltd, owns 50 per cent of the issued capital in MM Pty Ltd, which in turn owns a shopping centre at NN Street, City OO New Zealand ("the New Zealand property") valued in the range of approximately $32 million with a secured liability of $20 million. On the husband's case, the equity of the AA Family Trust in that asset is in the range of $6 million. The AA Family Trust also owns a real property being a car parking space at PP Street, Suburb QQ NSW valued in the range of $180,000 and a motor vehicle valued at $130,000. The husband agrees that the AA Family Trust is his property amenable to adjustment in the s 79 proceedings.
2. In late 2021, during the period of remarriage, a property at D Street, Suburb E NSW ("the Suburb E property") was acquired for $9 million. The legal title of the property is held 80 per cent by the adult child of the parties, Ms N, and 20 per cent by the wife. The husband estimates its current value to be in the range of $13 million. The husband says that the wife contributed $6 million to the acquisition from the sale proceeds of "her [Suburb B] property". The wife asserts that she purchased the Suburb B property in her sole name, utilising, in part, $7 million she received in the previous proceedings (Exhibit 10). It is agreed that the Suburb E property was acquired absence encumbrance by way of mortgage. The wife lives in the Suburb E property.
3. In September 2023 AA Pty Ltd, in its own right and its capacity as trustee of the AA Family Trust, obtained an advance of $6 million by way of a loan agreement with CC Pty Ltd. That liability of the AA Family Trust was secured by mortgage upon the title of the Suburb E property. Each of the husband, the wife, and Ms N provided, by way of deed, a guarantee on behalf of the AA Family Trust of the terms of the loan agreement.
4. The wife contends that the husband has failed to adequately disclose the use and application of the $6 million advanced to the AA Family Trust by CC Pty Ltd secured on the Suburb E property.
5. In mid-2021 contracts were exchanged for the purchase of the H Street property, as to Ms C Eccheli holding a 99 per cent share in that property and the husband holding the remaining one per cent share. In late 2023, the purchase was completed.
6. In early 2023 the wife exchanged contracts for the purchase of F Street, Suburb G QLD ("the F Street property"). The H Street property was sold in early 2024 for $4.03 million. Settlement of the purchase of the F Street property was imminent.
7. The litigation history gives further context to the determination of the remaining current disputes.
8. On 2 April 2024 consent orders were made for Ms C Eccheli to be joined to the proceedings and providing for the application of the sale proceeds of the H Street property to be held in a solicitor's trust account and paid to meet Ms C Eccheli's taxation impost on the disposal when it accrued. Ms C Eccheli did not appear in the proceedings on 2 April 2024 and a notation was made that she be excused from any further attendance in the proceeding.
9. On 4 April 2024 consent orders were made providing for the distribution of the sale proceeds of the H Street property of $2.778 million to the trust account of the wife's solicitors, to be then applied for the purposes of completing the purchase of the F Street property and for the payment of any taxation impost due by Ms C Eccheli on the disposal. A consent notation was made recording:
   1. The parties agree that the [F Street] property will be sold following its acquisition by the Wife on 5 April 2024, on the basis that the net proceeds of sale will be applied to the reduction of the home loan secured over the [Suburb E] property. The parties are currently in discussions regarding the appropriate form of Orders to facilitate the sale of the [F Street] property. While these discussions continue, the parties do not wish to delay the purchase of the [F Street] Property scheduled for 5 April 2024.
10. The orders made on 4 April 2024 also provided for the wife to retain the proceeds of sale of two villas she owned in Region K, NSW. She received $534,000 from the sale of a villa at 1 RR Street, Town SS, applied to her periodic expenses and those of her children over the past 12 months (Exhibit 7) and $535,000 from the sale of a villa at 2 RR Street, Town SS, applied to the payment of her legal fees in these proceedings.
11. On 5 April 2024 the funds to complete the acquisition of the F Street property were sourced from the H Street property sale proceeds.
12. On 12 April 2024 Schonell J made orders as follows:
    1. The wife is granted exclusive use and occupation as between the husband and wife of [D Street, Suburb E], New South Wales ("the [Suburb E] property").
    2. The husband pay, or cause to be paid, by way of spousal maintenance the monthly repayments of principal and interest pursuant to the [Suburb E] property home loan, and the utilities and outgoings in respect of the [Suburb E] property.
    3. The husband, pending its sale, is granted exclusive use and occupation as between the husband and the wife of [F Street, Suburb G], Queensland ("the [F Street] property").
    4. The parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to authorise Swaab Attorneys to pay to the husband the balance of the proceeds of sale of [H Street, Suburb J], Queensland ("the [H Street] property"), after deduction for the moneys to be paid to complete the purchase of the [F Street] Property pursuant to the Orders made on 4 April 2024, and after allowance for the moneys to be retained to meet the expenses of the second respondent pursuant to the Orders made on 2 April 2024.
    5. Other than in accordance with these Orders and save in the ordinary course of business, the husband and wife be, and hereby are, restrained from selling, further encumbering, transferring, or in any other way dealing with or diluting their interests in any assets in the husband or wife's name, the joint names of the parties, or in the name of any commercial entity or trust in which either party is a director or shareholder, without providing the other party less than 28 days' notice in writing of that party's intention to do so.
    6. Within 14 days of these Orders, and upon the husband providing notice in writing of no less than two business days, the wife make the following items available for collection by the husband from the office of the wife's solicitor, located at Level 8/66 Goulburn Street, Sydney, New South Wales:

(b) any Articles of Association, Trust Deeds or Deeds of Amendment, loan documents, contracts, registration papers and insurance documents in relation to motor vehicles;

(c) the husband's jewellery; and

(d) the husband's laptop and hard drives.

1. The husband's Application in a Proceeding filed 18 March 2024, the interlocutory orders sought by the wife in her Response filed 22 March 2024, and the wife's Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 28 March 2024 be dismissed.

1. Subject to evidence, I was told at the hearing on 8 May 2025 that the capital gains tax incurred by Ms C Eccheli on the disposal of the H Street property has been assessed and paid. I was also told, albeit no evidence was adduced, that $35,913 remains available for distribution from the proceeds of sale of the H Street property currently held in the solicitor's trust account. Order 8 made on 8 May 2025 secured payment of the outstanding council rates payable for the Suburb E property from the H Street property proceeds.
2. On 7 June 2024 extensive orders were made as to the appointment of single experts pursuant to ch 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") to value the properties of the parties including real property; as to any interests the parties have, whether directly or through a corporate entity; and for the parties to share the costs equally of those experts. Further orders as to the identity of the experts and as to mediation were made on 6 December 2024. The agreed ch 7 experts appointed pursuant to the orders of 7 June 2024 are:

(a) TT Valuers (as to the Sydney and Region K properties);

(b) UU Valuers (as to the City XX properties);

(c) VV Valuers (as to the New Zealand property); and

(d) Ms WW, a forensic accounting expert (as to the commercial entities and superannuation).

1. Notwithstanding both the husband and the wife echoing desires to progress the implementation of the adducing of single expert evidence as to value, the progress of instructions to the single experts has stalled for approaching 12 months. The stall is a product of disputes as to the disclosure, the content of instructions, and responsibility for costs of the experts. The agreed experts are yet to be formally instructed. The wife contends that the estimated obtained valuations for all entities and real properties will cost in the range of $1,002,900, being $501,450 each if shared equally between the parties. There is merit to the husband opposing paying experts to value corporations which he says are not trading or are deregistered. There is some merit to the husband's submission as to the wife "dragging her feet" in nominating and instructing experts, and merit, as recorded later in these reasons, as to disclosure failures. The wife contends that, absent access to additional funds, she is unable to meet her half of the experts' costs.
2. The wife is the sole legal owner of the F Street property. It is presently being listed for sale. The husband contends that it will sell for $3 million. Notwithstanding that, by way of notations made on 4 April 2024, the wife initially agreed to the sale proceeds of the F Street property being applied to reduce the mortgage on the Suburb E property, she changed her position in February 2025 and requested for the husband to agree to allow her to retain the proceeds of sale of the F Street property for her expenses and for the support of their adult children. The husband did not agree. She now seeks a different regime as to the distribution of the proceeds of sale. The husband seeks that the net proceeds of sale of the F Street property be applied to the mortgage over the Suburb E property.
3. The husband ceased paying the Suburb E mortgage and other payments for the property in January 2025. The wife became aware of the ceased payments on 4 March 2025.
4. It was agreed between the husband and the wife at the hearing on 8 May 2025 that the husband is in default of Order 2 made on 12 April 2024 as to spousal maintenance payable in respect of the Suburb E property for the benefit of the wife:

(a) As to the mortgage payments in the sum of $285,540 as at 30 April 2025;

(b) As to council rates in the sum of $2,556 as at 8 May 2025 (to be now paid by orders made 8 May 2025 from the H Street property sale proceeds); and

(c) As to strata and other outgoings in the sum of $24,312 as at 8 May 2025.

1. On 4 April 2025 orders were made Schonell J as follows:
   1. I stand this matter over for hearing at 9.15 am on 29 April 2025.
   2. Leave is granted to Mr Dura SC to appear via Microsoft Teams on 29 April 2025.
   3. The husband is to file and serve by no later than 4.00 pm on 17 April 2025 a Response to the wife's Application identifying all of the orders that he seeks together with an affidavit. In the event the husband does not comply with that order, then the matter will proceed on 29 April 2025 on an undefended basis.
   4. The husband to pay the wife pursuant to s 77 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the sum of $20,000 by way of urgent spousal maintenance; the first sum to be paid as to $10,000 by 4.00 pm on 16 April 2025 and the second sum of $10,000 by 4.00 pm on 23 April 2025.
   5. Orders are made in accordance with paragraphs 15, 16 and 26 of a document titled "Case Outline on behalf of the Respondent Wife" filed 3 April 2025 (marked as Exhibit 1) as set out hereunder:

"[F Street] Property

...

1. That within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders, the Husband shall pay, and continue to pay as they arise, all utilities, rates/levies and all other outgoings in respect of the [F Street] property pending sale and settlement of same including any amounts that are overdue as at the date of these Orders and shall indemnify the Wife and keep her indemnified with respect to such expenses.
2. That within fourteen (14) days of the date of these Orders, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to market for sale and sell the [F Street] property for the best price reasonably obtainable and, in particular:

16.1. Within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders, the Husband is to vacate the [F Street] property with only his personal belongings and not removing any custom-made furnishings, ensuring that the property is left in a clean and presentable state suitable for inspections by potential buyers.

16.2. The Wife is to:

16.2.1. appoint [Mr W] at [X Real Estate] (the "Agent") to act on the sale of the [F Street] property;

16.2.2. execute all documents requested by the Agent for the sale of the [F Street] property in the Agent's standard terms and with the Agent's standard fees;

16.2.3. give such instructions as are necessary to [Y Lawyers] to act on the sale of the [F Street] property (the "Conveyancer");

16.2.4. instruct the Agent to market the property for sale by way of public auction (the "First Auction") private treaty for a period of weeks or such other period of time as recommended by the Agent, using a listing price as recommended by the Agent, noting that the Agent indicated on 30 July 2024 that the property may sell for between $2,800,000 to $3,100,000 and has recently advised that the Easter period provides optimal opportunity to sell the property due to increased tourism in the area;

16.2.5. instruct the Agent to negotiate and accept an offer made to purchase the [F Street] property; and

16.2.6. provide disclosure to the Husband regarding the sale of the property within a reasonable timeframe.

Disclosure

1. That within 7 days of the date of these Orders, the Husband is to respond to the matters raised, to the extent that a response has not yet been provided, and provide all relevant supporting documents in response to the following letters from the Wife's Solicitor:

26.1. Letter of 15 November 2024;

26.2. Letter dated 4 December 2024 identified by the title 'Sale of Matrimonial properties',

26.3. Letter of 3 February 2025,

26.4. Letter of 21 February 2025,

26.5. Letter of 25 February 2025, and

26.6. Letter of 27 February 2025 and

26.7. Letter of 27 March 2025."

1. I will reserve all parties' costs.

1. The husband has not complied with Order 4 that he pay the wife $20,000 urgent spouse maintenance. He has vacated the F Street property.
2. The husband has sought leave to appeal and if leave is achieved, to appeal the s 77 order as to urgent spouse maintenance made on 4 April 2025 and the orders made on that day for specified disclosure. His application for a stay of those orders was refused on 14 April 2025. The husband's appeal from the disclosure order made on 4 April 2025 may not be competent (having regard to the fact that it is an appeal of a procedural order). The application for leave to appeal and if leave is achieved, the appeal itself, is listed on 2 July 2025.
3. The current value of the mortgage instalments payable to CC Pty Ltd for the Suburb E property are $46,215 per month and in default incurs additional payment of $25,000 per month. On 4 March 2025 the husband's request to CC Pty Ltd by way of hardship to extend the time to pay arrears was refused. The husband requested that the wife agree to sell the Suburb E property. She refused.
4. A notice of default and final demand dated 6 May 2025 has been served on the husband claiming $6,261,505.62 is due and payable by AA Pty Ltd, the husband, the wife, and Ms N to CC Pty Ltd by 16 May 2025 (Exhibit 6). It foreshadows enforcement action by way of legal proceedings to be taken against AA Pty Ltd, the husband, the wife, and Ms N should the loan not be paid by 16 May 2025.

THE HUSBAND'S APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE ORDER 2 OF THE ORDERS MADE ON 12 APRIL 2024

1. The husband's case is that the reason he ceased to make the payments of the mortgage and outgoings on the Suburb E property as ordered was because he no longer obtains benefits from discretionary and corporate trust structures. He says that to meet the Suburb E mortgage he expected his enterprises to "realise profit to continue funding it" by consultancy income, that he would continue to have an ability to receive loans, including from Ms V, and that he expected the proceedings would have been finalised by a mediated outcome by December 2024. He says by January 2025 he no longer had a capacity to pay the mortgage instalments for the Suburb E property as his resourced funds from Ms V ceased.
2. The husband reads an affidavit of Ms V. Her evidence is that she is "no longer in a position to lend [the husband] large sums", albeit she does say that she has been able to provide smaller, sporadic payments to the husband since March 2025 when she was advised by him that he was no longer receiving a salary from the Q Group.
3. The husband's application to discharge the spouse maintenance order engages s 83(2) of the Act, mandating that an order for spouse maintenance shall not be made increasing or decreasing an amount ordered to be paid unless the Court is satisfied of a sufficient change to the circumstances of the person for whose benefit the order was made, or the circumstances of the person liable for the payment since the original order was made to justify the said variation. The husband bears the onus to establishes the requisite sufficient change in circumstances as envisaged by the section.
4. Notwithstanding the husband's broad complaint that the wife has "orchestrated a false position of impecuniosity" by excessive discretionary expenditure and his complaints as to the wife's receipt of credits from a YY Company shareholding for the year ending 30 June 2023 and as to the wife failing to disclose a tax refund of $10,287 for the year ended 30 June 2024, he did not challenge the reasonableness of his primary obligation to pay the mortgage and outgoings in respect to the Suburb E property. The gravamen of change asserted by the husband is anchored in the change to his current financial circumstances from that as existed at the time of the making of the order on 12 April 2024.

1. A party to Pt VIII proceedings is required to make full and frank disclosure of their financial position in a timely manner (ch 6 of the Rules; Weir and Weir [1992] FamCA 69; (1993) FLC 92-338 ("Weir")). The duty of disclosure applies to relevant documents and information. It is absolute and fundamental to achieving justice and equity. The fact that the obligation of disclosure exists as a duty to the court, as well as the other party, is significant. The authorities make it clear that a failure to comply with an obligation of disclosure carries with it a capacity of the Court to be robust in favour of an innocent party.
2. The wife's submissions focused on a contention that the husband has failed to comply with his obligations of disclosure as to his financial circumstances as codified in ch 6 of the Rules and pursuant to orders made in the proceeding to date. The gravamen of her contention is that the terms and magnitude of these failures lead to a conclusion, notwithstanding the interlocutory character of this determination, that the Court ought not be unduly cautious in reaching adverse determinations to the husband's relevant financial circumstances. She asserts that his failures to comply with his obligations are calculated to mask his capacity to meet the orders made as to spouse maintenance.
3. The evidence identified by the wife as to the husband's disclosure failures is multifaceted.
4. First, the wife contends that between August and December 2024, the husband disposed of real property of the parties valued in the range of $21.3 million absent her knowledge or consent. She contends that these disposals occurred in contravention of Order 5 made on 12 April 2024.
5. The property at ZZ Street, Suburb AB ("the Suburb AB property") was sold in late 2024 by the Q1 Unit Trust for $1,040,000. Settlement occurred in early 2025. The husband has not disclosed the use and application of the proceeds of sale.
6. The wife identifies the disposal of AC Street, Suburb AD NSW ("the Suburb AD property") on 14 August 2024 (owned by the husband in a 50 per cent share) for $3.97 million, and of a property at AE Street, Suburb AF ("the Suburb AF property") (owned by the husband in a 25 per cent share). The husband says that the disposal of the Suburb AF property was in the ordinary course of business and hence notice of the intention to dispose pursuant to Order 5 made on 12 April 2024 was not required. It emerged during the hearing that contracts for the sale of the Suburb AF property were exchanged in late 2024 for $8 million, and completion occurred in early 2025. The husband said that "he did not own the [Suburb AD] property but simply had a 50% interest in it", and as at April 2025 he had not yet received the builder's final account.
7. The husband conceded at the hearing on 8 May 2025, absent explanation, that he has not disclosed the settlement statements prepared at the completion of the disposal of the Suburb AF property, or the settlement statements of any disposed property subject to complaint by the wife. I accept that the husband has not disclosed the use and application of funds received on the sale of the Suburb AF, Suburb AD and Suburb AB properties.
8. Second, the wife identifies that the most recent disclosed financial statements of Q Group Pty Ltd (Exhibit 11), Q2 Unit Trust (Exhibit 12) and Q Unit Trust (Exhibit 13) are for the financial year ended 30 June 2023. They record significant liabilities payable to other associated entities in the group. Exhibit 11 records directors' fees paid to the husband of $750,000. The financial statement of the Q2 Unit Trust (Exhibit 12) identifies land and buildings valued in the range of $60.8 million. These financial statements are almost two years out of date. It is uncontroversial that the husband has not disclosed management loan account ledgers of the trading unit trusts or the AA Family Trust or the Eccheli Trust, or the source documents verifying the flow of funds between those entities, himself, or others, by way of loans since 30 June 2023.
9. Mr AG, the Head of Finance for the Q Group, gives evidence that he is responsible for the cash flow and the financial reporting of the group and that he has oversight of the financial performance of key assets, gives some evidence as to the acquisition and disposal of specified real properties, a reduction in employees in the group and as to the receipt of funds by the group from Ms V. His affidavit gives summary evidence that:
   1. [Q Group] is actively implementing a capital management and restructuring program to reduce reliance on shareholder and intercompany funding, address debt obligations, and divest non-core or underperforming assets. These measures aim to improve cash flow, meet creditor commitments, and support the ongoing viability of the Group's development project, with a key focus on [the KK Property] project.
10. The evidence is insufficient to conclude that the Q Group entities are in overt financial distress. Rather, it more directs that the unit trusts or companies are currently encountering capital challenges in developing their real property.
11. I do not accept the husband's case that the evidence of Mr AG "sets out the current financial position" of the husband. Notwithstanding an implicit capacity to do so, Mr AG's evidence fails to adduce the current draft or management balance sheet or profit and loss type trading performance document of any members of the Q Group or management loan account ledgers and source documents relevant to those summary entries as identified earlier. This detracts from the weight to be given to his summary evidence. Documents and information of the character and period identified are relevant to the husband's capacity to access funds from the AA Family Trust, the Eccheli Family Trust and the Q Group. As will be seen, they interact with the husband's financial relationship with Ms V. I find that, as between the parties, the husband has sole province as to the documents and information regarding the current financial circumstances of the Q Group entities, by way of source documents or other summaries such as management accounts. He has elected to not disclose documents and information establishing the recent historical and current financial position and circumstances of the entities within the Q Group, the AA Family Trust or the Eccheli Family Trust, to both the wife and the Court.
12. Third, the wife highlights the husband's failures to comply with orders that were made by Schonell J on 4 April 2025 to respond to prior requests for disclosure particularised by the wife's solicitors in letters dated 15 November 2024, 4 December 2024, 3 February 2025, 21 February 2025, 25 February 2025, 27 February 2025, and 27 March 2025 (Exhibit 10). The orders are the subject of appeal. The stay of the orders was refused.
13. The documents and information sought by the wife in Exhibit 10 are extensive and detailed. They include forensic source documents and information underscoring the husband's financial circumstances as to the real properties sold or currently in the wheelhouse of the husband's direct or indirect control, such as corporate constitutions, shareholder and unit holder agreements, statutory and accounting financial statements after 1 July 2023, loan documents and loan statements, building contracts, tenancy and rental agreements and statements, source documents and specific information as to the source, and the use and application of significant, and on occasions repeated, funds transfers. The husband conceded a failure to comply with the specified disclosure order absent reasonable explanation. The requests for specific disclosure extend back to the letter dated 15 November 2024. Compliance by the husband with the disclosure requests would inform a conclusion as to his current financial circumstances. I accept the submission of the wife that the failure of the husband to comply with the repeated request for documents and information implies that such compliance would not assist him.
14. Fourth, the husband did not adduce evidence as to the use and application by the AA Family Trust of the $6 million advanced by CC Pty Ltd secured on the Suburb E property. I find that the husband had the capacity to disclose documents and information as to this subject matter and has failed or neglected to do so. This in turn has a what is now a circular nexus to the current financial circumstances of the AA Family Trust. The current income and expenses of the Trust, being the property of the husband, are all but completely opaque.
15. Fifth, the evidence identifies an interrelationship between the financial circumstances of the AA Trust, Q Group and Ms V. Her affidavit evidence records:
    1. In January 2024, [the husband] deposited $1 million into my account. The funds were used for [Q Group 's] financial requirements. I made multiple transfers to [AA Trust] and [Q Group] and paid bills on his behalf.
16. The husband did not adduce evidence as to the source of the funds paid to Ms V in January 2024, being a substantial payment made during these proceedings. Neither the husband nor Ms V adduced evidence explaining the reason for the husband to deposit $1 million into the account of Ms V and then for Ms V to use those funds to pay expenses on behalf of the AA Family Trust or Q Group. Objectively, the transaction is unorthodox.
17. The husband's Financial Statement and an affidavit of Ms V annex two documents in the form of ledgers. The documents may have varying interpretations. One document records a flow of $1,806,450 originating from Ms V from 8 February 2024 until 15 April 2025. The other titled "Transactions Made in Account" records a flow of funds either to or from Ms V, or an entity she controls, and the husband and/or entities on his behalf between 7 January 2024 and 14 April 2025. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are identified as "Trf to [AA Trust]" or "Trf to [Q Group]" or "Credit from [Q Group]".
18. The identity of the "borrower" or "borrowers" of funds advanced from Ms V cannot be clearly distilled from the evidence. On one interpretation the value accumulated on a ledger is $1,806,450. The affidavit of Ms V records:
    1. On 15 February 2024, I withdrew $545,030 and transferred it to [Q1 Pty Ltd] so [the husband] could pay for council rates and staff wages.
    2. On 19 July 2024, I deposited a further $400,000 ($270,000 from my account and $130,000 from the [AH Company] account) to [Q Group]. An additional $100,000 was deposited on the 28th February 2025. These transactions are detailed in Exhibit A, titled '[The husband] Loan Ledger- BBSW & Interest v2 '.
    3. I initially emailed [the husband] a copy of the original document titled '[The husband] Loan Ledger- BBSW & Interest' on the 16th April 2025. However, while preparing this affidavit, I realised that a payment of $130,000, transferred on the 19th July 2024 from the [AH Company] account, had not been included in the ledger. I subsequently updated the document to reflect this transaction and provided the revised version to [the husband] via email on the 17th April 2025.
    4. Once the injected funds were used, [the husband] asked whether we could assist by lending him further funds to cover business expenses and family law obligations. As a result, I have provided him with financial support as needed. The funds are being lent at an interest rate of 9.35%. As of the 15th April 2025, the total outstanding loan amount is $1,936,450.00 with accrued interest of $170,601.76.

1. The wife has requested disclosure of the loan agreement made between the husband or the AA Family Trust or Q Group, and Ms V or an entity she controls. It has not been disclosed. Nor have the source documents used to create the ledgers. The relevant bank statements of the husband or entities he controls are reasonably anticipated to be in the possession or control of the husband. The terms of the contended advances are not clear on the evidence, including that portion of the funds being obtained by the husband or by the AA Family Trust or by Q Group, and how the $1 million sources from the husband in January 2024 has been accounted for in the contended value of $1,806,450 or $1,936,450.
2. Further clouding the evidence on this subject matter is the husband's Financial Statement recording a contended liability by way of loan from Ms V of $93,839. Perhaps counterintuitively, he records a liability as "Interest on Loans from [Ms V]" at a value higher than the contended outstanding principal by way of loan, the interest value being $161,577. This evidence in his financial statement on one view conflicts with the evidence of Ms V, or at least does not stand on all fours with it.
3. The current terms of the financial inter relationships between the husband, AA Family Trust, Q Group and Ms V cannot be reconciled on the evidence adduced.
4. I find the ledger documents establish that the husband caused Q Group to pay to Ms V $20,000 on 13 April 2025 in preference to complying with the s 77 order for urgent spouse maintenance payable to the wife, being $10,000 on 16 April 2025 and $10,000 on 23 April 2025. The husband did not explain his election to remit funds to Ms V in preference to complying with the order on made 4 April 2025. The ledger further confirms transfers for payments of "Filing Fees" and the husband's legal fees in these proceedings. The wife's suspicion as to the flow of funds between the husband and Ms V has merit.
5. The husband's affidavit records inconsistent evidence as to his salary from Q Group, at one point ceasing in January 2025, and at another in March 2025. He does not identify the value of that salary. He does not give evidence as to the value of his debit or credit loan account in any entities in the Q Group or as to the AA Family Trust or Eccheli Family Trust.
6. There is an absence of:

(a) Any detailed evidence as to the financial performance of the AA Family Trust over the past two years, including its use and application of the value of the liability secured over the Suburb E property, and

(b) Why that trust, who received the benefit of the $6 million loan advance, cannot meet the costs of that facility from its own resources noting that it has a 50 per cent interest in a New Zealand shopping centre and holding not insignificant equity in that real property.

1. These evidentiary vacuums are further clouded by the opaque particulars as to the fact and value of funds passing to and from Ms V.
2. The husband's disclosure of documentation and information relevant to his financial circumstances at the time of the making of the spouse maintenance order on 12 April 2024 and to the current time is grossly deficient, as are the particulars of that financial circumstance at each date. What has been disclosed has been haphazard, inconsistent, and scant. I accept the submission of the wife that the husband has failed to comply with his positive obligation to disclose material facts, information, and documents to enable an understanding of his relevant financial conduct.
3. The evidentiary deficiencies in the husband's case and the extent of his disclosure failures conclude that he has failed to establish to the requisite degree the threshold mandated in s 83(2) of the Act as to a sufficient change to his financial circumstances at the current time from that as existed at the time the order was made. His application to vary, by way of discharge, Order 2 made on 12 April 2024 will be dismissed.

THE WIFE'S RELIEF AS TO ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER 2 OF THE ORDERS DATED 12 APRIL 2024

1. The husband, while seeking a discharge of the obligation pursuant to Order 2 of the orders made on 12 April 2024 to pay the Suburb E mortgage, did not seek any retrospective discharge of that order. During the hearing the wife restricted her relief on this subject matter to seek declarations as to the total amount owing by way of that obligation. During the hearing, paragraph 17 and 18 of Exhibit 3 was withdrawn by the wife. They will be dismissed. She did not press any further order by way of enforcement of the arrears of mortgage.
2. A declaration will be made that the value of the husband's obligation by way of spouse maintenance pursuant to Order 2 made on 12 April 2024 and as at 30 April 2025 is $285,540.
3. The parties also agreed that the total sum by way of strata fees and other outgoings, pursuant to Order 2 of the orders made on 12 April 2024 and as at 8 May 2025 is $24,312. These arrears are considered later in these reasons.
4. It is a matter for the wife as to such further processes she pursues for enforcement of the declaration of the arrears of mortgage by way of spouse maintenance, whether by way of further application of the Act and the Rules in this forum (by way of an Application - Enforcement) or by other processes in a different forum.

THE WIFE'S APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY

1. The wife seeks a variation of Order 5 made on 12 April 2024 to the following effect, where the amendments to the order are by way of strikethrough or are in bold and underlined:

10.1 Other than in accordance with these Orders and save in the ordinary course of business, the husband and wife be, and hereby are, restrained from selling, further encumbering, transferring, or in any other way dealing with or diluting their interests in any real estate assets in the husband or wife's name, the joint names of the parties, or in the name of any commercial entity or trust in which either party is a director or shareholder, without providing the other party less than 28 days notice in writing of that party's intention to do so, and providing all relevant particulars and documents as to the intended dealing with full and frank disclosure at the same time as notice is being provided.

1. The wife also seeks a further injunction that the husband in his personal capacity and his capacity as the sole office holder of the corporate trustee that controls the EE Property shopping centre at FF Street, Town S ("EE Property") to cause the proceeds of sale of that property, after payment of selling expenses and an amount required to discharge any mortgage, to be paid into a "protected proceeds account" and that the husband disclose particulars as to the selling agent, or solicitor/conveyancer acting on the property.
2. The wife, through her senior counsel, indicated that she will provide the usual undertaking as to damages to support each of the current injunctions for the preservation of property as sought.
3. The husband opposes any variation to Order 5 and any further or other injunctive order as to the preservation of property.
4. The wife must establish both that there is an arguable case with sufficient likelihood of success to justify the relief sought, and that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunctions, in that there is a danger or risk of dissipation of, or dealings with, assets which will frustrate any judgment in her favour (Tsiang & Wu and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128; (2019) FLC 93-911).
5. The wife claims no direct interest in the property identified in the injunction. The subject matter of the litigation is her right to claim orders for property adjustment under Pt VIII of the Act, particularly s 79, and the pool of assets the subject of that claim.
6. Mr AG adduces evidence that EE Property has been sold for $44.104 million and the disposal of that asset is projected in a net loss of $599,320 to Q Group. Mr AG's calculations are:

Particulars Amount (AUD)

Sales Price 44,104,000

Deductions

Rental Guarantee (624,930)

Rental Incentive (416,620)

Leasing Fees Allowance (62,493)

Land Tax Outstanding (175,642)

Legal and Transaction Costs (Provision) (50,000)

Sales Proceeds after Deductions 42,774,315

Agents Commission (1%) (441,040)

Debt Settlement - NAB Facility (34,030,000)

Bank Interest - NAB (1,373,054)

(outstanding and forecasted interest to

June 2025)

Debt Settlement - [L Investment Firm] (3,684,313)

Net Proceeds After Loan Settlements 3,245,908

Intercompany Business Loans

Intercompany Loan - [AJ Pty Ltd] (1,834,341)

Intercompany Loan - [Q2 Pty Ltd] (2,010,887)

Net Proceeds After Debt and Loan (599,320)

(As per original).

1. An analysis of this evidence raises questions that would be answered if the husband had complied with his disclosure obligations.
2. It is unclear as to whether rental guarantees, rental incentives, and leasing allowance fees are incurred or are paid on settlement, or whether they are deductable values for accounting and taxation purposes.
3. A sum of $3,245,908 from the sale proceeds is identified to be applied to intercompany loans. There is no evidence as to the immediate requirement to repay any intercompany loans, or as to the value of any loan account of the husband or related entities including the Eccheli Trust in either AJ Pty Ltd or Q2 Pty Ltd that may be an avenue to access those monies.
4. The submissions of the wife as to the necessity for a variation of Order 5 made on 12 April 2024 and the further injunctive order sought have merit in the shadow of the husband's disclosure failures as identified earlier in these reasons, including the husband's failure to disclose the application of the proceeds of sale of real properties of significant value and the opaque financial relationship with Ms V. Compliance with his obligations of disclosure would shed light upon the terms of disposals of real property, whether they be in the ordinary course of business or otherwise, as to the use and application of the monies received, and an understanding as to the flow of significant funds to and from Ms V.
5. The husband's implicit contention is that he need not comply with the disclosure of documents and information if he considers the disposal of an asset to be in the ordinary course of business. Irrespective, that does not engage with the impact of his disclosure failures as recorded earlier in these reasons, including, his failure to comply with both substantive and procedural orders made to date. These matters establish a danger or risk of dissipation of, or dealing with, property to frustrate the final relief of the wife as to the adjustment of property.
6. The wife has demonstrated a case to receive notice as to disposals of real property interests. The amended injunctive relief she seeks as to particularising a requirement for notice were not contended by the husband to be prejudicial to, or to impact adversely on, the operations of the Q Group or the AA Family Trust. The wife ought to have the opportunity to digest and evaluate proposed arrangements or transactions the husband proposes be undertaken. Broadly the wife would thereafter bear the onus to make application if necessary to prevent the arrangement or transaction proceeding or being implemented if she objects. The husband will have the capacity to make applications to vary any notice period as he is advised. The balance of convenience favours the amending of Order 5 made on 12 April 2024 broadly, with some variation, as sought by the wife.
7. Having regard to the matters identified earlier in these reasons as to the absence of disclosure as to the value and application of significant real property sales, the wife has established a risk that, after payment of selling expenses and discharge of any mortgage, the proceeds of sale of EE Property will be dissipated, thereby frustrating her substantive claim. The husband did not adduce any evidence as to prejudice if the intercompany loans are not paid. The balance of convenience favours the wife. No submission was adduced as to why the corporate funds produced on sale ought to be deposited into an account of the wife. Orders will be made regulating the sale of EE Property so that the mortgage is discharged, and other necessary disposal costs are paid, with the balance to be retained in a controlled monies account operated by the corporate trustee pending further order of the Court or agreement between the husband and the wife in writing. Either party has the capacity to apply to vary such order should they establish an evidentiary foundation to exercise discretion to do so. The order sought by the wife as to view only access of the controlled monies account and to receive disclosure of the identity of agents and solicitors acting on the sale are appropriate and will be made.

THE BALANCE OF THE MONEY FROM THE H STREET PROPERTY

1. Pursuant to Order 4 made on 12 April 2024, the balance of those proceeds of sale of the H Street property were payable to the husband. Both parties seek to vary Order 4 made on 12 April 2024. Order 8 made on 8 May 2025 secured payment of the outstanding council rates payable for the Suburb E property from the H Street property sale proceeds.
2. The value of the proceeds of sale, after payment of the outstanding Suburb E property rates, will be $33,357.90. The wife's current relief seeks to vary Order 4 made on 12 April 2024 so that she receives the balance of those funds. The husband seeks that the balance be applied first to pay outstanding strata levies and outgoings due on the Suburb E property, being agreed in the sum of $24,312 as at 8 May 2025, and then for the balance (in the range of $9,045.90) to be paid to the wife.
3. There is an imperative that outstanding strata levies and outgoings due on the Suburb E property be paid as soon as possible. By way of Order 4 made on 12 April 2024, the husband would receive the balance of the H Street property proceeds. Application of the proceeds of sale to pay the outstanding strata levies and outgoings resonates with that order and Order 8 made by consent on 8 May 2025, thereby applying monies that the husband would have received to pay his liability pursuant to the spouse maintenance order. The wife made no compelling submissions to the contrary. An order will be made in the terms sought by the husband subject to the parties obtaining the consent of Ms C Eccheli in writing.

FURTHER ORDERS REGULATING THE SALE OF THE F STREET PROPERTY

1. No submission was made by the husband in opposing the additional orders sought by the wife to facilitate the sale of the F Street property by way of a second auction if necessary. These orders facilitate implementation of the orders made scaffolding the sale on 4 April 2025. Such mechanical orders are proper and will be made.
2. The wife no longer agrees with the terms of Notation B recorded on 4 April 2024. She proposes to receive part of the proceeds of sale of the F Street property to fund her living and for litigation funding purposes (Exhibit 3). The husband seeks orders implementing the agreement recorded in Notation B, being for the proceeds of sale of the F Street property to be applied to reduce the value of the Suburb E mortgage. It is his case that such a course preserves the property of the parties. Late in the hearing on 8 May 2025 he proposed by way of alternative, that if the wife was to receive monies from the sale of the H Street property, he ought to receive 50 per cent of those monies. He did not make application to amend his relief to seek orders for interim or partial property settlement.
3. The husband contends by way of logic, rather than evidentiary foundation, that if the F Street property sale achieves approximately $3 million and if those proceeds are applied to the CC Pty Ltd mortgage secured on the Suburb E property, the mortgage instalments on the outstanding principal will halve to be approximately $23,000 each month. There is no evidence to support this conclusion. The husband did not contend that he could meet that halved mortgage payment in any event. He suggested that the availability of the proceeds of sale of the F Street property would give the parties purchase in attempting to negotiate with the mortgagee of the Suburb E property. While that may be so, he did not propose a refinance of the Suburb E property mortgage.
4. In the event the wife's proceeds of sale from the F Street property are paid to reduce the Suburb E property mortgage, she would be advancing those proceeds to the AA Family Trust, being the husband's property, by way of loan. The husband's disclosure failures concerning the financial circumstances of the AA Family Trust over the past two years militate against this course.
5. That said, a confronting reality is emerging for both the wife and Ms N, as the legal owners of the Suburb E property. It is anticipated that they will need to engage with the mortgagee in the event they seek to oppose the foreshadowed summons seeking an order for possession. The horizon is further clouded as to whether the mortgagee will take action against the primary borrower, being the AA Family Trust, in priority to, or in preference of, directing its efforts to the secured real property legally held by Ms N and the wife. The terms of any response they and/or the AA Family Trust adopt is at this time speculative.
6. The basal fact is that the AA Family Trust is the borrower, receiving the loan funds. The husband has not disclosed why the AA Family Trust cannot repay its liability. The determination of these contests may emerge in another forum.
7. The wife has established significant changes to her circumstances from the time of Notation B in the orders made on 4 April 2024. She has expended the proceeds of sale of her Region K properties by way of payment of legal fees in respect of these legal proceedings and by way of her own support, as recorded in the s 50 schedule itemising her expenses over that period (Exhibit 7). The wife currently does not have access to funds for her own periodic self-support. It is reasonable to access her own property for that purpose. In the event the wife receives $500,000 from the proceeds of sale, on her own evidence, this will be sufficient to enable her to meet her periodic weekly needs save accommodation costs for at least the next 12 months. Such varied order will be made.
8. The wife requires funds to pay her anticipated future costs for these proceedings. Exhibit 5 records her estimated future costs to be $785,380. Engaging with the husband's disclosure failures, enforcing orders that he has failed to comply with, and the fact of multiple interlocutory applications, have exponentially increased the wife's costs.
9. Under the existing orders made 7 June 2024 the wife is required to fund half of the costs of the ch 7 valuation experts. Orders will be made as sought by the wife as to the proceeds of sale of the F Street property save that she will receive $750,000 for the purposes of litigation funding and for that purpose only. Orders will be made to that effect.
10. Adopting the wife's own relief to regulate the application of the balance of proceeds of her property, order will be made for the balance to be paid into a controlled monies account on behalf of the wife with her solicitor. Subject to further application by either party or agreement between them in writing, the funds will be preserved. They may have utility to fund other litigation leverage negotiations between the wife and Ms N with the mortgagee.

1. The wife conceded at hearing that in the event she receives monies from proceeds of sale of the F Street property that she does not agitate any change to the orders made 7 June 2024 as to the parties paying half the costs for the ch 7 single experts.
2. The husband did not submit as to why the orders as to the identification and location of artworks and appointment of ch 7 single experts to value them ought not be paid. Those orders will be made in the terms sought by the wife.
3. The evidence does not permit any further progression of the disputes as to the terms of instructions to single experts at this time. There is merit to the wife's submission that disclosure is required to be completed to refine the instructions to the experts. There is no sensible reason to value a corporation or other entity that has no assets or does not trade. This conclusion can be objectively achieved if updated disclosure is provided.
4. On the Court's own motion, orders will be made for the wife and husband to file an undertaking as to disclosure in compliance with ch 6 of the Rules within 21 days. The husband and wife are on notice that a failure to file such undertaking or to comply with ch 6 of the Rules or with orders will expose their substantive applications to be struck out, with the capacity of the other non-defaulting party to proceed on an undefended basis. In the event such application is to be pursued by either party, it would be appropriate that it be contained within an Application in a Proceeding supported by an evidentiary foundation. The matter will be listed before a senior judicial registrar to ensure procedural progression of the matter.

1. No opportunity has been afforded for the parties to make submissions as to costs. Costs will be reserved.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and five (105) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton.