Edwards v Noble

(a) Any response to the wife's costs application sealed on 11 June 2025 arising out of the determination made on 16 May 2025 and as to the wife's application for costs of the stay determined by way of the orders made on today's date; and

(b) Any affidavit material in support thereof.

1. On or before 8 August 2025 the wife shall file and serve any written submissions as to costs of no greater than five pages.
2. On or before 22 August 2025 the husband shall file and serve any written submissions as to costs in response of no greater than five pages.
3. The balance of the relief sought by the husband in his Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 25 June 2025 is adjourned for directions and management before Justice Schonell in person at 9.30 am on 4 July 2025.

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

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

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

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

1. These reasons determine Order 1 as sought in an Amended Application in a Proceeding of Mr Eccheli ("the husband") filed on 25 June 2025 for a stay of Orders 1 to 5 and 10 made on 16 May 2025 pending the hearing by the Appellate Division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) of his Notice of Appeal filed on 13 June 2025.
2. The balance of orders sought by the husband in his Amended Application in a Proceeding seek a variation of the orders made on 16 May 2025, additional interim or partial property relief, discharge of periodic spouse maintenance, discharge of interlocutory injunctions and as to orders regulating the proceeds of sale of the F Street Property and as to the striking out of the wife's substantive relief. The balance of relief sought in the Amended Application in a Proceeding will be listed for directions before the docket judge. During the hearing the husband foreshadowed an application to file a Further Amended Application in a Proceeding and it was acknowledged that the wife ought to have a reasonable opportunity to respond to any further amendment.
3. The orders under challenge on appeal are:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The husband's application to discharge Order 2 made on 12 April 2024 is dismissed.

2. It be declared that the value of the husband's obligation by way of spouse maintenance pursuant to Order 2 made on 12 April 2024 at 30 April 2025 is $285,540.

[EE Property]

1. Pending further order, on condition that the wife files and serves an undertaking as to damages, upon settlement of the sale of the property at [FF Street, Town S] in the state of New South Wales ("[EE Property]"), the husband, in his personal capacity and his capacity as sole Director of the Trustee company of [Q Pty Ltd], is to do all acts and provide all necessary instructions and directions to cause the proceeds of sale of the [EE Property], after the payment of:

(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 the [EE Property], the wife to provide a copy of these orders to any agent, solicitor or conveyancer appointed or acting on the sale of the [EE Property].

Restraint on dealings/sale of real 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.

...

The [F Street Property] sale proceeds

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.

(As per the original)

1. Ms Eccheli ("the wife") opposes the stay.
2. The grounds of appeal in the husband's Notice of Appeal filed on 13 June 2025 are:

1. The Judge made a decision that was plainly unjust, failed to consider the Appellant's evidence and in making orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10, falls so outside a reasonable exercise of discretion that the orders was unreasonable. 2. The Judge erred at law by failing to properly consider the evidence and made incorrect findings of fact that contrary to section 72(1) Family Law Act 1975, the Appellant is reasonably able to:

(a) have capacity to pay the Respondent Wife maintenance absent any evidence of his capacity to do so; > > (b) That ordering the Appellant to make payments of maintenance to the Respondent Wife for outstanding [CC Bank] mortgage payments is unjust and unreasonable in circumstances the Court expects the Appellant to go into debt to meet payments of maintenance to the Respondent Wife; and > > (c) That ordering the Appellant to pay the wife the outstanding mortgage payments to the Wife is unreasonable and unjust in circumstances [CC Bank] have issued a demand for final payment of the entire outstanding loan facility against the parties.

1. The Judge erred at law by failing to properly consider the evidence, made a decision that was plainly unjust in ordering a restraint of property and dealings within the ordinary course of business contrary to Rule 6.06 (4)(b), that Rule 6.06 (3)(g) be dispensed with, without having regard to third party unit shareholders and the global operation of the property and asset machinery of the business operations. 2. The judge erred at law by failing to properly consider the evidence when making orders that affect third parties unit shareholders when those third parties are not party to the proceedings, that falls so outside a reasonable exercise of discretion that the order was unreasonable. 3. The Judge erred at law by failing to properly consider the evidence in finding the Wife be provided an interim property distribution of $500,000 and $750,000 for litigation funding in circumstances of being excessive and absent any evidence of the Wife's legal costs in failing to file a Costs Notice in accordance with Rule 12.06.

1. For the reasons that follow, the husband's application for a stay will be dismissed.

1. These reasons assume familiarity with Eccheli & Eccheli (No 7) [2025] FedCFamC1F 333. Some of the determinations under challenge were anchored from earlier primary orders made more than 12 months ago, on 12 April 2024. They provided:
   1. The husband pay, or cause to be paid, by way of spousal maintenance the monthly repayments of principal and interest pursuant to the [D Street Property] home loan, and the utilities and outgoings in respect of the [D Street Property].

...

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 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.

(As per the original)

1. Unchallenged on appeal, the reasons delivered on 16 May 2025 record:

1. The husband is a real property developer. He is employed by [Q Group]. The Group holds and engages in the development of [...] 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 [Town S Shopping Centre] purchased on 1 June 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 the [JJ Property] acquired on 1 July 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 the [KK Property] acquired for $45.8 million in June 2022, currently valued at $27 million, and subject to a liability of $27.6 million; and > > (d) A 66.6 per cent share of the [LL Property] purchased on 1 August 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] valued in the range of $180,000 and a [Luxury 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. On 1 November 2021, during the period of remarriage, a property at [D Street, Suburb E] ("the [D Street 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 [D Street Property] was acquired absence encumbrance by way of mortgage. The wife lives in the [D Street 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 ("CC Pty Ltd")]. That liability of the [AA Family Trust] was secured by mortgage upon the title of the [D Street 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 Bank] secured on the [D Street Property]. 5. On 16 August 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. On 16 November 2023, the purchase was completed. 6. On 23 March 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] February 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 [D Street 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]. 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.

...

1. 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 [D Street 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 [D Street Property].

2. The husband ceased paying the [D Street Property] mortgage and other payments for the property in January 2025. The wife became aware of the ceased payments on 4 March 2025.

3. 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 [D Street 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. The current value of the mortgage instalments payable to [CC Bank] for the [D Street 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 Bank] by way of hardship to extend the time to pay arrears was refused. The husband requested that the wife agree to sell the [D Street Property]. She refused.

2. 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 Bank] 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.

(As per the original)

1. Further, findings were made, unchallenged on appeal, as to the husband's multi-faceted failures to disclose his relevant financial circumstances (at [44]-[45]) including the use and application of the proceeds of sale of real properties and as to the integers making up the value of some pivotal items of the husband's current property, the AA Family Trust, the Eccheli Family Trust and the Q Group (at [46]-[69]). This included an unchallenged finding (at [56]) that the husband did not adduce evidence as to the use and application by his property, the AA Family Trust, of the $6 million advanced to it by CC Pty Ltd secured over the D Street Property, notwithstanding his capacity to do so. A finding was made, unchallenged on appeal, that the recent and current income and expenses of the AA Family Trust at the time of the hearing on 8 May 2025 were "all but completely opaque".
2. Further findings were made that:
   1. 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.
   2. 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.

1. Further, and not subject to challenge on appeal, the reasons record:
   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 [D Street Property] mortgage, did not seek any retrospective discharge of that order...

1. As to the injunctive order subject of challenge, the reasons record:
   1. [Mr AG] adduces evidence that the [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 Family 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 the [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.

1. The affidavit evidence of the husband in support of the stay pending the appeal identifies that he has prepared and disclosed published financial statements for a raft of corporations and trusts for the year ending 30 June 2024 and other source documents since the determination on 16 May 2025. He adduced evidence that ATO audit processes of him personally and AA Pty Ltd (the trustee of the AA Family Trust) dated 11 June 2025 have resulted in combined taxation liabilities of $3,042,327.02 plus interest.
2. He contends a significant change in his financial circumstances from that which he asserted at the primary hearing, being that the parties' assets are now $89,046,307 with estimated liabilities of $88,746,928 resulting in a net position of $299,379. He submits that a stay of the orders under challenge on appeal is necessary to prevent the imploding of what he describes as a "house of cards". The husband makes complaints as to the wife's disclosure failures after the primary orders made on 16 May 2025, contending that $140,000 has been deposited into her account without adequate explanation and that her "need" for funds is still disingenuous.
3. The wife puts into issue the husband's contentions, citing that she has disclosed all relevant documents and information as to her financial conduct and that she has not had an opportunity, having regard to the urgent listing of the stay application, to respond to the serious contentions made by the husband as to she misrepresenting her financial affairs. She contends that the husband is well aware of the sources of funds being deposited into her account, such as a significant value by way of the sale of a motor vehicle. The wife submits that the husband's financial disclosure remains grossly defective and that important information and documents, especially for the past 12 months, implicitly including but not limited to the subject matters recorded in the findings and the orders made on 16 May 2025, are yet to be provided by him.
4. Remarkably, notwithstanding the raft of evidence filed by each party in opposition to or supporting the stay, no evidence was adduced as to the date of sale of the F Street Property or the amount received. It was agreed during the hearing that contracts for the disposal of the property were exchanged at auction at a sale price of $2.7 million on 21 May 2025 and that the disposal settled in June 2025. It was further agreed that Order 10 made on 16 May 2025 has been implemented, such that the wife has now received $500,000, the wife's solicitors have received $750,000 for litigation funding, and $1,146,703.61 remains in a controlled monies account.

1. Rule 13.12 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) codifies the inherent power of the Court to stay its orders pending determination of an appeal. The inquiry as to a stay is directed to whether circumstances exist that warrant the exercise of discretion to depart from the presumption that a party is entitled to the fruits of the judgment and to assume that the judgment under challenge is correct (Jennings Construction Limited v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Limited [1986] HCA 84; (1986) 161 CLR 681 ("Burgundy Royale")).
2. Circumstances which may justify a stay of an order pending the outcome of an appeal include the need to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory, or when there is a real risk it will not be possible for the prospectively successful appellant to be restored substantially to his or her former position if the challenged order is executed (Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd (No 1) [1986] HCA 13; (1986) 160 CLR 220 at 222-223). It is important to consider the prospects of the appeal and where the balance of convenience lies between the parties (Burgundy Royale at 685). The relevant principles which govern appeals from discretionary judgments made are well known. Error of the type identified in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504-505 ("House") must be established.

1. The husband abandoned his relief seeking a stay of Orders 1, 2 and 4 during the hearing.
2. Each of the presumptions identified in Burgundy Royale weigh in favour of the wife in dismissing the application for a stay. Additionally, no application to expedite the appeal has been filed. No draft appeal index has been filed. The allocation of a hearing date for the appeal is unsurprisingly not known. Each of these matters favour dismissal of the stay.
3. The wife put into issue the bona fides of the husband on appeal, citing that this is the second appeal from an interlocutory order he has filed and the second application for a stay. The earlier application for a stay was dismissed by Schonell J on 29 April 2025. The earlier appeal was discontinued after it was listed following the husband's failure to comply with the filing directions. Notwithstanding, I accept the husband's bona fides for the purposes of this determination.
4. The husband has not brought his application for a stay promptly. He was aware of the anticipated date for completion of the disposal of the F Street Property from 21 May 2025, being the date of entry into the contract for sale. His delay generated the distribution of part of the proceeds of sale of the property being $500,000 to the wife and $750,000 to her lawyers for litigation funding, rendering a stay of Order 10 made on 16 May 2025 otiose. The husband did not explain any reason for the delay.
5. This reinforces my conclusion not to accept the husband's submission that his appeal would be rendered nugatory in the event a stay was not granted. The interlocutory orders under challenge can be considered in the final judgment, noting that it is the husband's case that the D Street Property is beneficially held by the parties with a value of $13 million and the $6.25 million loan (at [17]-[18] and [38]) being for the husband's benefit by way of the AA Family Trust. I accept the wife's submissions that the basis of the husband's asserted summaries of the value of their current property and liabilities has not been adequately explained, and that the parties are yet to complete any ch 7 single expert valuation processes. In any event the husband has access to valuable property interests irrespective of his unsupported gross value of liabilities.
6. The husband's submission that the requirement to give the wife notice restricts him from being able to deal with his real property interests in the usual course of business was not supported by evidence. Additionally, the husband remains confronted by the findings in the primary judgment (at [51]-[53], [56]-[63], [66] and [80]-[83]). Further, while the husband asserts prejudice by way of the injunctive order as to the corporation selling the EE Property and holding the balance of proceeds of sale in its account because he proposes to direct those funds to pay a mortgage relating to the KK Property, he conceded that the KK property security was not collaterally secured on the EE Property. The husband did not make any submissions as to why he could not apply to vary that injunction or its terms, conceding during submissions that an application to vary the injunction may be the preferred course to seeking a stay of Order 3 made on 16 May 2025. No persuasive submissions were made as to why the husband could not apply to vary the terms of Order 5, being the injunction requiring a 28 day notice provision to deal with real property. Each of these subject matters would be progressed, at least partially, on disclosure of all current documents and information as to the husband's financial circumstances.
7. As to the merits of the appeal, the grounds prosecuted vacillate with a mixture of assertions as to failing to consider relevant matters, factual error by way of "incorrect findings", errors as to weight and errors of the kind identified in the last limb of House.
8. The husband conceded that he has not sought the required leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders under challenge in his Notice of Appeal (s 28(3)(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)). To achieve leave to appeal, the husband must demonstrate that the decision under challenge is "attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered by the Full Court and substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong" (Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692 at [57] (Emphasis in original)). Both his Notice of Appeal and submissions in support of the stay were silent on this subject matter.
9. The declaration subject to challenge by the husband by way of Order 2 made on 16 May 2025, being the value of his spouse maintenance arrears at the time of the hearing, was an agreed fact. The husband did not seek a retrospective discharge of the spouse maintenance order made on 12 April 2024. The foundations for his appeal from the declaration appear meritless.
10. Grounds 3 and 4 asserting a failure to consider a relevant matter are forlorn. In support of the appeal, the husband did not clearly demonstrate in his submissions that attention was drawn to the interests of third parties at the primary hearing (Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar the Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand [2008] HCA 42; (2008) 237 CLR 66 at [20]). Ground 2 as to the assertion of a factual error by way of "incorrect findings" is little more than a complaint that the father's interpretation of the evidence was not accepted. Factual error is established if findings are not reasonably open (Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296) or are demonstrably wrong by incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony; glaringly improbable; or contrary to compelling inferences (Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; (2016) 331 ALR 550 at [43]). No submissions of this character were made by the husband. Grounds complaining a failure to "properly consider" are, in reality, weight challenges. Of themselves, they are not competent grounds (Hedlund & Hedlund (2021) FLC 94-065) save being linked to the grounds of contended error as identified in the last limb of House, being that the vitiating of a discretionary judgment is inferred by way of an assertion that the orders subject to challenge are plainly wrong, unjust or unreasonable. The Full Court in Adcock & Sealy [2024] FedCFamC1A 137 confirmed that the character of this last resort ground that arises from an incongruence between the result and the underlying evidence, as synthesised with applicable legal principles, seldom succeeds. The husband made no submissions as to any apparent incongruence between the reasons and the results, leading to the unlikely success of this repeated ground. This conclusion is compounded here by the requirement of the husband to obtain the indulgence of leave to appeal, linked with his capacity to apply (as he has done in part), to vary the interlocutory orders under challenge based in part on further evidence as to matters that he asserts have developed after the date of the determinations under challenge.
11. It is a matter for the husband to establish merit to his appeal. He has not done so. A generous examination of the grounds produces a scarcity of merit, in turn generating a compelling circumstance attracting weight against the exercise of discretion to order a stay. Assuming the husband was able to point to error, given the test on leave is conjunctive, he has not sufficiently demonstrated that a substantial injustice would be occasioned by the refusal of leave.
12. I am satisfied on a consideration of the foregoing matters, that the balance of convenience favours the wife. The application for a stay will be dismissed.
13. The wife sought her costs of the husband's stay application in the fixed sum of $10,912. Each party ought to have an opportunity to file evidence and submissions as to this subject matter. That costs dispute and the wife's Application in a Proceeding sealed on 11 June 2025 seeking costs of the determination made on 16 May 2025 as transferred by Schonell J for determination by me will be each listed for hearing and directions made as to the filing of material in support of or opposing costs.

I certify that the preceding thirty-one (31) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton.