Kramer & Rupert [2025] FedCFamC2F 1336 (24 September 2025)

1. By 4:00pm 21 October 2025, the parties are to provide to each other copies of:

(a) their three (3) most recent payslips,

(b) their income tax returns and assessments for the financial years ending 30 June 2023, 30 June 2024 and 30 June 2025 as may have been lodged or issued in Australia,

(c) their income tax returns and assessments for the financial years ending 30 June 2023, 30 June 2024 and 30 June 2025 as may have been lodged or issued in another jurisdiction,

(d) transaction statements for all financial accounts (including savings accounts, loan accounts and credit cards) held by them solely or jointly with any person, or in respect of which they have had an interest either within Australia or another jurisdiction between 13 September 2023 and 12 September 2025,

(e) documents evidencing, any interest they hold in any real property either solely or jointly with any other person ('the real property'), including:

(i) current title search of the real property,

(ii) current statement of any loan account secured over the title of the real property specifying the outstanding principal, type and rate of interest charged and monthly repayment sum,

(iii) any current lease agreement or other document(s) detailing any current rental income received from the real property, and

(iv) a current real estate market appraisal of the real property prepared by a qualified real estate agent engaged by the party holding an interest in the real property.

(f) documents evidencing any income earned or profits gained other than from employment,

(g) documents evidencing any shareholdings they currently have in any public, private or unlisted companies,

(h) documents evidencing any inheritances received during the course of the relationship and since its demise,

(i) member benefit statements for any superannuation interests held by them during the financial years ended 30 June 2024 and 30 June 2025,

(j) the following specified classes of documents in respect of any trust of which they have been the settlor, appointer, trustee (or member of a corporate trustee) or beneficiary in Australia or overseas, from 13 September 2023 to 12 September 2025:

(i) A copy of the trust deed and any documents amending the trust deed,

(ii) Financial statements and tax returns of the trust for the financial years ended 30 June 2023, 30 June 2024, and 30 June 2025, and

(iii) The last four (4) business activity statements lodged by the trust.

(k) current certificate of registration for any motor vehicle, motor bike and/or marine vessel owned by them or by any private company, trust, joint venture, or partnership of which they are a member, participant, subscriber, shareholder, director, secretary, trustee, beneficiary, settlor, appointer, principal, and/or nominator, whether at law or beneficially,

(l) certificate of currency with respect to any life assurance policy in which they hold a beneficial interest,

(m) documents recording their disposal of any property (whether by sale, transfer, assignment gift) from August 2023 to 12 September 2025.

1. By 4:00pm 5 November 2025, the parties are to file and serve an Undertaking as to Disclosure in the approved form.

1. The parties and any lawyers on the record shall attend a Conciliation Conference with a Judicial Registrar at 9:00am on 21 November 2025.
2. The parties and any lawyers on the record shall follow any directions from the Judicial Registrar convening the Conference in relation to attendance in person, by Webex or by telephone.
3. Unless they obtain an exemption of such fee in accordance with the Family Law (Fees) Regulations 2012, the parties must each pay one-half of the Conciliation Conference fee by 4:00pm on 7 November 2025.
4. By 4:00pm on 7 November 2025, the parties shall each file and serve an Undertaking as to Disclosure.
5. By 4:00pm on 7 November 2025, each party must:

(a) Ensure that all documents required to be exchanged between parties pursuant to section 71B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (as amended) and Chapter 6 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ('the Rules') have been exchanged;

(b) Ensure that any private Expert Report that is relevant to the proceedings has been filed;

(c) Provide to the Court by email to ...@... and to the other party a single collated bundle of documents comprising:

(i) A completed Confidential Outline of Case (Dispute Resolution) in the approved form, including:

1. A list of documents relied upon;

2. A Balance sheet;

   1. An outline of the issues relevant to property adjustment;

   2. A brief chronology relevant to the issues in dispute;

   3. An outline of the issues relevant to maintenance;

(ii) A detailed minute of Orders Sought in an unprotected word document;

(iii) A copy of any previous or current family violence orders;

(iv) A copy of any document exchanged between the parties which is directly relevant to an issue remaining in dispute (with relevant passages highlighted);

(v) Particulars of any financial resource;

(vi) Any valuation or market appraisal of any real estate or other asset the value of which is in dispute;

(vii) Statements for, and where applicable, valuations of any superannuation interest;

(viii) Written confirmation that the trustee of any fund that may be the subject of a splitting order has been afforded procedural fairness.

1. Not later than 4:00pm on 7 November 2025, the applicant is to file a collaboratively prepared single Balance Sheet setting out all assets, liabilities, superannuation and financial resources which the parties assert are relevant to the determination of this matter and the document shall have footnotes which explain the differences between the parties in relation to any disputed item.
2. Leave is granted to each party to re-list the matter for a procedural hearing before the docket Judicial Registrar should either party consider there is an impediment to genuine settlement negotiations occurring or continuing or should it become known to either party that the Conciliation Conference may not proceed effectively for any reason.
3. In the event either party fails to comply with the above directions, the docket Judicial Registrar or the Registrar before whom the Conciliation Conference is listed before may vacate the Conciliation Conference and a further Conference may not be allocated until the Judicial Registrar is satisfied that the matter is ready.

1. The proceedings are listed for a Compliance and Readiness hearing at 9:30am on 27 February 2026 in the Newcastle Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) before Her Honour Judge Suthers with leave given to the parties and their lawyers to appear audio-visually via Webex by clicking the link at [...]
2. In accordance with the FCFCOA Central Practice Direction - Family Law Case Management by 20 February 2026 each party must file and serve:

(a) An Amended Application or Response as appropriate, setting out the precise orders sought, if the most recently filed Application or Response is not current;

(b) An undertaking as to disclosure in accordance with Rule 6.02 of the Rules; and

(c) A Certificate of Readiness in the approved form.

1. By 23 February 2026 the parties or their legal representatives must confer in order to be able to advise the Court of the following matters at the Compliance and Readiness Hearing:

(a) the factual issues requiring determination at a Final Hearing;

(b) the main legal and factual contentions advanced in relation to each issue in dispute;

(c) in parenting matters, the capacity of each party to contribute to the cost of a single expert report instead of a family report;

(d) the proposed witnesses (including expert witnesses) and their availability;

(e) whether interpreters are required;

(f) whether the matter is appropriate to be heard by videoconference;

(g) whether expert evidence can be given by videoconference;

(h) the estimated length of the Final Hearing and proposed trial plan; and

(i) whether any other step is required in order for the matter to proceed to a Final Hearing.

1. By 4:00pm on 25 February 2026, the parties shall provide a draft minute in Microsoft Word format setting out with precision any procedural orders sought to aid the limiting of issues or time required for the Final Hearing, by email to the Chambers of the Compliance and Readiness Hearing Judge at...@.... Or...@....

1. By 4.00pm on 22 October 2025, any party seeking an order for costs shall file and serve an Application in a Proceeding and supporting affidavit(s) and financial statement (if applicable).
2. By 4.00pm on 5 November 2025, the other party shall file and serve a Response to an Application in a Proceeding, with supporting affidavit(s) and financial statement (if applicable).
3. Should an application for costs be filed, THEN pursuant to rr 5.02(2)(c) and 5.09 of the Rules, the application will be listed for hearing before Judge Suthers in chambers with no appearances required.

1. Save for the applicant's interim spousal maintenance application, all outstanding interlocutory applications are dismissed.
2. The applicant's interim spousal maintenance application is listed for consideration as part of the Compliance and Readiness Hearing on 27 February 2026.

1. Forthwith, the Court expects that an authorised officer of the Court will email to the respondent (and to the applicant via circular copy) - via their respective email addresses specified on the Court record - a copy of rr 6.01, 6.03 and 6.06 of the Rules together with the link to the approved form of the Undertaking as to Disclosure.
2. Any outstanding disclosure, valuation/s and procedural fairness must be attended prior to the Mediation/FDR and costs orders may be made in the event the matter is not able to proceed on the date allocated for this conference in these Orders.

1. The conciliation conference is a court event for the purposes of r 12.06 of the Rules. The parties and their lawyers must comply strictly with their obligations under that rule. Prior to the Family Dispute Resolution Conference, the lawyer for each represented party must provide to his or her client, and to each other party, a notice indicating whether the party is in receipt of legal aid funding and, if not, providing particulars of:
   1. the total costs and disbursements incurred by the party in the proceeding to date;
   2. an estimate of the anticipated costs expected to be incurred in each remaining stage of the proceeding; and

1. An estimate of the likely duration of the final hearing and the total anticipated costs and disbursements expected to be incurred for the remainder of the proceeding.
2. The Confidential Outline of Case (Dispute Resolution) is a confidential without prejudice document prepared for the purpose of the Conciliation Conference only. It is not to be filed or kept with the Court file after the conclusion of the Conference.
3. If the Compliance and Readiness Hearing does not proceed or the matter is unable to be listed for Final Hearing as a consequence of the non-compliance of one (1) party, consideration will be given to a grant of leave to the complying party or parties to proceed on an undefended basis and to orders for costs.
4. If the contents of a Certificate of Readiness are found not to be accurate, consideration will be given to a grant of leave to the non-defaulting party or parties to proceed on an undefended basis and to orders for costs.
5. Any adjournment of the Compliance and Readiness Hearing event is at the discretion of the presiding Judge, and such requests must be made in writing jointly to the presiding Judge's chambers no less than 7 days prior to the Compliance and Readiness Hearing.
6. There is a current apprehended domestic violence order between the parties which will expire on 12 November 2026

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

1. Approximately nine (9) months ago, the de facto husband initiated family law proceedings in the Family Court of New Zealand. Seven (7) months ago the de facto wife initiated financial and property proceedings in this Court. It is common ground that if the New Zealand process continues, then a post-separation inheritance received by the de facto husband is likely to be excluded from consideration of any property adjustment order made as between the parties. Which Court is the more appropriate forum?
2. Unless otherwise specified, any reference to 'the Act' or a legislative provision shall be a reference to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Similarly, where there is a reference to subordinate legislation or 'the Rules' it is a reference to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
3. The substantive financial and property proceedings were commenced by the applicant de facto wife MS KRAMER ('the applicant' or 'the DFW'). The respondent de facto husband is MR RUPERT ('the respondent' or 'the DFH').
4. Out of respect for each person's gender and social status, all persons will be identified by their surnames, unless they are parties and where applicable, there will be an avoidance of the use of gendered pronouns.
5. In broad scope, the issues, and outcomes for determination by me were:
   • Should the applicant's process be stayed because a New Zealand court is the more appropriate court to determine the matters in issue?
   • Should I make a declaration that Australia is the more appropriate forum?
   • Should I restrain the respondent from dealing with one (1) of their property interests in certain ways?
   • What case management directions should be made (if any) in light of a determination of the substantive dispute?
   • What (if any) costs order should be made?
6. There are some circumstances that inform these issues.

1. The genesis for the discrete hearing before me arose from final and interlocutory relief sought by the applicant as contained within their amended initiating application filed on 31 March 2025, as amended by the discourse between bar and bench at the discrete hearing and otherwise clarified by the applicant's minute of proposed orders.[1]
2. Broadly speaking then, the applicant's relief was as follows:

(a) A property adjustment order for:-

(i) the transfer to the DFW of over $169,000 held on trust by a conveyancer and representing the remaining proceeds from the sale of the parties' real property at Suburb F,

(ii) the payment of AUD$210,000 to the DFW by the DFH with default provisions which could result in the sale of a New Zealand property at Suburb D ('the NZ property') of which the DFH holds a one-third interest,

(b) A weekly periodic spousal maintenance order of AUD$200 paid by the DFH to the DFW,

(c) Various declarations be made for the parties to otherwise retain their interests in specified assets, liabilities, superannuation, and financial resources, and

(d) The DFH to pay an unspecified and unquantified costs order in favour of the DFW.

(e) A declaration pursuant to s 113 that the Court is a more appropriate forum than a Court of New Zealand to determine the family law financial and property dispute between the parties,

(f) The dismissal of the DFH's stay application,

(g) A direction that the DFW file a copy of the Court's orders in the relevant Family Court of New Zealand court file,

(h) An injunction restraining the DFH from encumbering their one-third interest in the NZ property,

(i) Mutual specified disclosure by the parties akin to r 6.06,

(j) The DFH to pay unquantified indemnity costs order in favour of the DFW in relation to the interlocutory proceedings, and

(k) The allocation of a conciliation conference facilitated by a judicial registrar of the Court.

1. As for final relief, no response to initiating application has been filed by the respondent despite directions being made by the Court on 5 February 2025[4], 25 February 2025[5] and 7 April 2025.[6] As such, the Court is unaware of the final relief sought by the respondent.
2. Notwithstanding the various directions specified above (which also sought the filing by the respondent of a financial statement), the Court accepts that where jurisdiction is in dispute, a party has no obligation to make 'full and frank' disclosure other than in respect of information that is reasonably necessary for the determination of the jurisdictional facts.[7]
3. It may be that the respondent's conduct in light of these various directions, is the subject of further scrutiny should a costs order be pressed, particularly if there is a reliance on any alleged non-disclosure by the respondent.
4. As far as their interlocutory relief is concerned, on 28 March 2025, and seemingly in response to the relief sought by the applicant (as earlier identified by me), the respondent filed an application in a proceeding seeking that:

(a) the applicant's process be stayed pursuant to s 17 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) ('the TTP Act'), and (perhaps in the alternative)

(b) the relief sought by the applicant be stayed until the Family Court of New Zealand determined the question of forum.

1. For ease of reference, and in the absence of any formal direction by the Court, paragraph 6.13 of the Court's Central Practice Direction ('the CPD'), says this:

6.13 No less than 7 business days prior to the Interim Hearing, the parties must file and serve:

a. a minute setting out the precise terms of orders sought at the hearing; and

b. a Case Outline document in the approved form setting out the party's major contentions in relation to the issues to be determined at the Interim Hearing and a list of documents to be relied upon at the Interim Hearing (such list to be limited to documents which are relevant to the particular issues to be determined at that hearing).

1. The interim dispute was listed before me for hearing on 1 August 2025.
2. The applicant was late in filing their Minute of Orders and Outline of Case Document and the respondent did not file any such documents.
3. Self-evidently both parties were in default[8] although neither party sought any adverse findings in that regard, and I permitted the applicant to rely upon their late filed material and for the interim hearing to proceed on the basis of the respondent making oral submissions and notwithstanding the respondent's failure to comply with direction 1 made 7 April 2025 and paragraph 6.13 of the CPD.
4. On the question of costs, it may be relevant for the Court to reflect upon each party's conduct of non-compliance.
5. Following discussions with the parties, I am satisfied that until the question of jurisdiction is resolved, all other substantive interlocutory applications may be deferred. That means that depending on the exercise of my discretion the following interlocutory disputes may require further judicial determination:

(a) Interim spousal maintenance, and

(b) Costs.

1. The parties were in court when the evidence was received, and I have considered all of it during the course of my consideration of the dispute before me. As may be applicable, at times I will make specific references to that evidence (and supporting submissions) and at other times I may not.
2. I return now to the issues.

Should the applicant's process be stayed because a New Zealand court is the more appropriate court to determine the matters in issue?

1. The TTP Act codifies the law to be applied where competing applications are brought within the jurisdiction of Australia and New Zealand. In that regard, it usurps common law test.[9]
2. The respondent seeks to stay the applicant's Australian process, urging a finding that the New Zealand Family Court is the more appropriate forum to determine the dispute between the parties in accordance with the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ).
3. As identified by the Full Court of May, Ryan and Murphy JJ in Nevill & Nevill [2016] FamCAFC 41 ('Nevill'), the exercise of my discretion is constrained by two (2) matters.
4. First - I must have regard to s 19(2) of the TTP.
5. Second - I must not take into account the fact that the proceeding was commenced in Australia.[10]
6. For convenience, s 19(2) of the TTP is set out below -

Section 19 Order of stay of proceeding

....

(2) In determining whether a New Zealand court is the more appropriate court to determine those matters, the Australian court must take into account the following matters:

(a) the places of residence of the parties or, if a party is not an individual, its principal place of business;

(b) the places of residence of the witnesses likely to be called in the proceeding;

(c) the place where the subject matter of the proceeding is situated;

(d) any agreement between the parties about the court or place in which those matters should be determined or the proceeding should be commenced (other than an exclusive choice of court agreement to which subsection 20 (1) applies);

(e) the law that it would be most appropriate to apply in the proceeding;

(f) whether a related or similar proceeding has been commenced against the defendant or another person in a court in New Zealand;

(g) the financial circumstances of the parties, so far as the Australian court is aware of them;

(h) any matter that is prescribed by the regulations;

(i) any other matter that the Australian court considers relevant;

and must not take into account the fact that the proceeding was commenced in Australia.

1. As identified in Nevill at [19], through the TTP Act, I have a broad discretion to determine whether civil proceedings should be determined here or in New Zealand.
2. It is common ground that the civil proceedings in both jurisdictions relate to the breakdown of their relationship with the Region B Family Court having the conduct of court file ....
3. Turning then to the nine (9) matters referenced within s 19(2) of the TTP Act, I make the following findings.
4. Since late 2017 the applicant has lived in Australia.[11] The respondent lives in New Zealand.[12]
5. The applicant says that they wish to call their sister MS G ('MS G') to give lay evidence as to matters which may be relevant to the Court's exercise of discretion under the Act.[13] The applicant contends that their father would also be called to give evidence in-person and that the applicant has the capacity to meet any practical difficulties with their father from Country H to do so.[14]
6. The applicant contends that the cost and convenience of them travelling to New Zealand to defend the respondent's proceedings would be unduly oppressive and burdensome.[15]
7. Speaking directly to s 19(2)(b), the respondent asserts that no witnesses will be required save for the parties.[16]
8. It is alleged that the parties have property interests in various jurisdictions including -

(a) In Australia - sale proceeds held in a conveyancer's trust account, cash, a motor vehicle owned by the applicant and superannuation interests,[17]

(b) In New Zealand - a one-third share in the NZ property, superannuation interests, a personal liability and bank accounts owned by one (1) or other of the parties,[18]

(c) In Country H - allegedly undisclosed interests held by the applicant.[19]

1. No express agreement between the parties about the court or place in which those matters should be determined or the proceeding should be commenced was before the Court.
2. I have considered the contentions made by the applicant as to inferences to be drawn about the parties' conduct leading up to each party's initiation of their respective proceedings[20], but am not inclined to make any further comments or findings about them.
3. It appears to be common ground that almost all of the parties' property interests were accrued during the time they co-habited in Australia between 2017 and the second half of 2023.[21] Both before their move to Australia and following separation, property interests were accrued at least in New Zealand as identified above.
4. Both parties give evidence about the financial and non-financial contributions they made in either Australia or New Zealand.
5. It is common ground that the parties' son X ('the child' or 'X') was born in Australia in 2019 and has lived with the mother in Australia since separation.
6. In the midst of pre-action procedures being implemented by the parties pursuant to schedule 1 of the Rules, but before any proceedings were instituted pursuant to the Act; the respondent commenced proceedings in New Zealand pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ).[22]
7. The respondent contends that the value of their one-third interest in the NZ property is not available for adjustment by a court exercising jurisdiction under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ).[23] The applicant says there is a serious risk of the respondent's contention coming to fruition.[24]
8. Conversely the applicant contends that their relief under the Act is informed by (if not directly affecting) the New Zealand interests held by (at least) the respondent because, for example, the Applicant does not seek any Orders in relation to immoveable property in New Zealand.[25]
9. Both parties "cry poor" when it comes to their financial circumstances.[26] I accept that if the applicant had to travel to New Zealand, X would require some form of care whilst the applicant was appearing in court.
10. No party made any submissions about the relevance of any regulations.
11. The arrangements for X whilst proceedings are on foot in either jurisdiction are relevant. The mother's evidence is to the effect that if they had to travel to New Zealand, they would have to source fulltime care for [X] at my expense, and this would make such travel financially detrimental for me and [X].[27]
12. I acknowledge that the respondent has the care of a non-subject child and that they are solely responsible for the child's financial support.[28] I am unclear what (if any) practical difficulties the respondent would experience should they be required to attend a court event in person in Australia, although it seems that the respondent and the non-subject child live in the NZ property with the former partner of the respondent's deceased mother.[29]
13. The respondent says that they have struggled to instruct a lawyer in Australia but did in the past do so.[30]
14. Although I understand that the applicant agitated for me to consider the prospect of parenting proceedings being commenced by the respondent, I am not satisfied that the respondent's evidence enabled me to reasonably draw that inference. In those circumstances, the dispute is contained to financial and property proceedings.

1. Depending on the outcome of the respondent's stay application, some concomitant relief will need to be considered.
2. Turning firstly to the stay application.

Should the applicant's process be stayed because a New Zealand court is the more appropriate court to determine the matters in issue?

1. The facts informing the exercise of my decision are summarised below:

(a) The applicant has been living in Australia since 2017, and it has only been in more recent times (early 2024) that the respondent has returned to New Zealand, living in the NZ property with a non-subject child and their step-father.

(b) The applicant has the primary care of a quite young child of the relationship and if the Australian proceeding was stayed, then as may be required, they will have to travel to New Zealand which may or may not cause X to have to travel with them and for someone else to care for the child whilst the applicant was attending court. It was unclear if the same situation would apply to the respondent in the reverse.

(c) The parties' relationship endured for a longer period of time in Australia than in New Zealand. As a consequence, a majority of the events that would inform the myriad of contributions the parties each submit they have made to their property interests extends over a greater period of time in Australia than in New Zealand.

(d) The applicant contends for themselves and two (2) lay witnesses to give evidence about the contributions made by them. The respondent submits that only themselves will be required in their case. The applicant's two (2) lay witnesses do not live in New Zealand. There is some dispute about the nature and extent of those contributions.

(e) The parties' property interests extend to at least two (2) (and possibly) three (3) countries including Australia and New Zealand.

(f) The applicant does not seek relief that immediately impacts upon the respondent's property interests in New Zealand but it may.

(g) The law of New Zealand does not necessarily allow the respondent's interest in the NZ property to be the subject of consideration in determining each party's claim whereas the Act does permit such a consideration.

1. I am satisfied that the connecting factors outlined above favour a conclusion that the law of New Zealand is not the most appropriate law to apply to determine the parties' property interests following the breakdown of their relationship.
2. The respondent's stay application should be dismissed. Given the extant proceedings in New Zealand, it is in the interests of justice that the applicant be permitted to provide a copy of my Orders to the Region B Family Court, and I will so direct.
3. I turn then to the three (3) concomitant outcomes agitated for by the applicant.

Should I make a declaration that Australia is the more appropriate forum?

1. The applicant contends that the circumstances justify a declaration that Australia is the more appropriate forum.[31]
2. I reject that contention because one (1) of the conditions precedent to the making of such a declaration is that the proceeding falls within paragraph (b) of the definition of matrimonial cause at s 4(1) of the Act as set out below:

Section 4 Interpretation

(1)...Matrimonial cause

...

(b) proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of:

(i) a marriage; or

(ii) a divorce; or

(iii) the annulment of a marriage;

by decree or otherwise;...

1. While the parties were married, the proceeding is not about the validity of that arrangement but rather about spousal maintenance and property adjustment or in other words, it is about financial matters.[32]
2. I decline to make the declaration sought by the applicant.

Should I restrain the respondent from dealing with one (1) of their property interests in certain ways?

1. Pursuant to s 114(1)(e), the applicant sought injunctive restraints against the respondent in relation to their interest in the NZ property.
2. Informing the exercise of discretion is whether it is proper to do so, which means reasonable and just in the circumstances of the case.[33]
3. In Tsiang & Wu [2019] FamCAFC 128 ('Tsiang & Wu') the Full Court of Strickland, Ainslie-Wallace & Aldridge JJ considered this power pending the final determination of the proceeding. In doing so, and as helpfully summarised by Judge C.E. Kirton KC in Linford & Ennis at [91], key principles were identified as follows[34]:

(a) The grant of an injunction is discretionary. A purpose is to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the dispute. An applicant must demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried;

(b) The applicant must demonstrate that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction;

(c) The applicant must first establish a prima facie cause of action against the respondent and second, that if the assets are disposed of the applicant will not able to have the judgment satisfied;

(d) The court must take a qualitative evaluation of the evidence to see if there is a sufficiently serious risk of frustration to justify the granting of the injunction;

(e) It is unnecessary to demonstrate a positive intention, but merely the possibility of the event occurring. The determination about the balance of convenience may therefore be an inference drawn from the facts and circumstances established by the applicant's evidence;

(f) It is not the role of the judge determining the question of the injunction to, at this interim stage in effect conduct a trial of the disputed evidence to resolve those disputes; and

(g) The risk of dissipation must be real and not merely theoretical.

1. In exercising my discretion as to whether to order or not, I need to balance the hardship experienced by each party and ensure that any order is framed in such a way as to impose no further restriction that is necessary to achieve the protection of the applicant's interest.[35]
2. Circumstances that inform the exercise of my discretion include:

(a) The respondent telling the Court at paragraph 50 and 51 of their affidavit that

(i) the NZ property cannot be sold before 1 June 2025 and that as of 3 May 2025, no sale date had been set,

(ii) they do not wish for it to be sold, and

(iii) if it was to be sold, then the respondent would be entitled to a one-third share of the sale proceeds,

(b) The respondent's interest in the NZ property forms one (1) of the more significant assets within the parties' property interests with the exhibited balance sheet[36] contending it represents over 60% of the parties' combined property interests,

(c) The applicant does not directly seek an order impinging on the respondent's interest in the NZ property (but it may if enforcement is required); and says that if the respondent's interest was not preserved, it could adversely impact upon the considerations to be taken into account by the Court in the making of any property adjustment orders,

(d) While there are other owners of the NZ property, their right to sell will not be impugned because of the manner in which the applicant's proposed restraints are framed.

1. Informed by the above considerations, and the state of the untested evidence, the injunctive relief sought by the applicant is proper. On the balance of convenience, there is no prejudice to the respondent in making Orders which appear consistent with the respondent's own evidence about not wishing to sell up and would otherwise secure a property interest over which the applicant has no control, but which may inform (to a lesser or greater degree) findings that could otherwise be made pursuant to the Act.
2. In addition, the applicant's relief does not impugn the rights of all of the owners of the NZ property, to crystallise their proprietary interests into proceeds of sale.
3. Injunctive orders will be made accordingly.

What case management directions should be made (if any) in light of a determination of the substantive dispute?

1. Consistent with my obligations towards the overarching purpose,[37] I need to make directions to progress the proceeding forward towards finalisation (whether by way of agreement or judgment).
2. In furtherance of this pathway, all parties have a continuing obligation to make full and frank disclosure, whether by way of admissions and production of documents,[38] so that the evidence before the Court can enable it to make findings informing a just and equitable decision.
3. The respondent tells me that the applicant has not made full disclosure of their proprietary interests in the Country H.
4. The applicant contends that the respondent has been less than candid about their proprietary interests although that contention will need to be tested given:

(a) the respondent filed a financial statement on 3 May 2025, and

(b) the respondent failed to file an Undertaking as to Disclosure notwithstanding the Court directed them to do so on 25 February 2025.[39]

1. The Court is supportive of parties finding their own path to resolution and because of the jurisdictional contest, the respondent declined to accept the applicant's offer for privately funded dispute resolution (mediation).
2. The Court can also consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant a court-based dispute resolution event such as a conciliation conference which would be conducted by a judicial registrar.[40]
3. The case remains allocated to my docket. The parties both contend that their financial resources will be adversely impacted, regardless of where the proceeding was determined. There was limited evidence about the parties' access to the liquid funds necessarily required to fund a private mediation.
4. Now that jurisdiction is resolved,[41] and any limitations on the respondent's duty of disclosure removed, I intend to make various directions including that each party file and serve an Undertaking as to Disclosure within the next six (6) weeks so as to allow them to bring-up-to-date any admissions or documents that the Rules require them to make or produce.
5. Because the respondent is a litigant in person I will direct that the Rules cited above are provided to the respondent by an authorised officer of the Court, along with a link to the approved form for the Undertaking.
6. Following on from the parties making disclosure and filing the Undertaking, a conciliation conference will be ordered. The applicant's interim spousal maintenance has been on hold until the jurisdictional question was resolved, rather than allocate a hearing date (and judicial resources now), I will consider the future case management of that application when the substantive proceeding is back before me for case management. I expect that during the conciliation conference, this issue will be considered.
7. To avoid any further delays towards finalisation, if the parties cannot come to an agreement, the proceeding will be listed for a further compliance and readiness hearing before me in the next few months, with ancillary directions made to support that process. I would allocate trial dates now but absent a settled balance sheet and further submissions being made about disclosure, I do not know how long the trial will take.
8. Save for the outstanding issue of costs, all other interlocutory applications before the Court will be dismissed.
9. For all the reasons give above, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for me to make the directions I intend to make.

1. The applicant contends for costs to be paid by the respondent on an indemnity basis but does not quantity the sum sought.[42]
2. Both parties agreed that it would be consistent with the overarching purpose and procedurally fair for any costs application to be determined in chambers.
3. Directions will be made to support that process, but can I urge the parties to consider whether applying for a costs order is a good use of their time, energy, and money when the tenor of their evidence and submissions is that they cannot afford the litigation and just want the dispute to end.

1. I have made orders and directions that are informed by my broad discretion (as variously specified within my reasons).
2. Having ruled on this preliminary issue I expect the parties to comply with my directions and co-operate in a manner that will see the finalisation of this proceeding sooner rather than later. Their conduct is important both as far as alleged non-disclosure and non-compliance with Orders and can result in adverse findings about the substantive dispute for spousal maintenance and property adjustment as well as the ancillary question of costs. They are on notice.

I certify that the preceding eighty-four (84) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Suthers.

[2] See prayers 1 to 12 on pages 2 to 4 of the DFW's amended initiating application filed 31.03.2025.

[3] See prayer 11 on page 6 of the DFW's amended initiating application filed 31.03.2025 and the DFW's minute of proposed orders marked as exhibit 'W3'.

[7] See the Full Court decision in Norton & Locke [2013] FamCAFC 202, (2013) 50 Fam LR 517 ('Norton & Locke') at [80].

[9] See Nevill & Nevill [2016] FamCAFC 41 at [17], [25],

[11] See Affidavit of MR RUPERT filed 03.05.2025 at [10] & [19]. For convenience, future references to this affidavit shall be via the acronym 'MRR' with paragraphs in square parenthesis.

[13] See Affidavit of MS KRAMER filed 31.03.2025 at [11]. For convenience, future references to this affidavit shall be via the acronym 'MSK#1' with paragraphs in square parenthesis.

[14] See Outline of Case Document filed 29.07.2025 on page 11 at paragraph 80. For convenience, future references to this document shall be via its exhibit marking 'W1'.

[15] Exhibit 'W1' on page 11 at paragraph 82 and the decision of McEvoy J in Zhu & Xie [2021] FedCFamC1F 86 ('Zhu & Xie') at [14].

[17] MSK#1-[12], [14] and MRR-[31].

[18] MSK#1-[15] and MRR-[37], [42] & [45].

[20] Exhibit 'W1' on pages 11 & 12 at paragraphs 83 to 90.

[21] MRR-[11]- [19] and MSK#1-[36], [38]-[39].

[22] MRR-[33] & [53] and MSK#1-[19] & [22].

[26] See for example MRR-[56] - [59] and MSK#1-[67]-[68].

[31] See s 113 and paragraph [1] of the applicant's minute of proposed orders marked exhibit 'W3'. For convenience, future references to this document shall be via its exhibit marking 'W3'.

[32] See definition of financial matters at s 4(1) of the Act.

[33] See for example In the Marriage of Farr [1976] FamCA 72; (1976) 2 Fam LR 11,300; FLC 90-133 and more recently Judge C.E. Kirton KC's decision in Linford & Ennis [2024] FedCFamC2F 68 ('Linford & Ennis') at [90].

[34] Tsiang & Wu at [20]-[23] and [25]-[27].

[35] Sieling & Sieling [1979] FamCA 23; (1979) 4 Fam LR 713; 35 FLR 458, 90 FLC 90-627 at [79]

[38] See rr 6.01, 6.03, 6.06 of the Rules.

[39] Direction 4.b. made 25 February 2025.

[40] See the Court's Central Practice Direction: Family Law Case Management at paragraph 6.26 and paragraph 10 in exhibit 'W3' where the applicant askes for a conciliation conference to be ordered.