Lavan & Sanela [2025] FedCFamC1F 796 (7 November 2025)

1. If in any proceedings there are allegations of family violence and the provisions of section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) apply (see attached Family Violence Information Sheet), any unrepresented party will not be permitted to personally cross-examine the other party/parties.
2. Affected unrepresented parties may apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme ("the Scheme") for representation but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the final hearing.

1. Further information about the legislation and the Scheme can be found at Part 4 of the attached Family Violence Information Sheet.

1. If s102NA applies and a party becomes unrepresented after trial directions have been made, that party is required to promptly advise the Court.
2. Section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to communicate to the public any account of family law proceedings which identifies the parties, witnesses or other people concerned with the proceedings, unless specifically authorised by the court.

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. This matter comes before me today following a mediation between the parties conducted by Mr H of Counsel. The parenting proceedings are between the mother, father and Independent Children's Lawyer. The property proceedings are between the wife, husband and the second respondent to which the husband has transferred property. The wife seeks to set aside the transaction for the transfer of real property. The second respondent, the applicant husband's niece, opposes the relief sought by the wife and says she is a bone fide purchaser for value without notice (s106B).
2. The applicant husband and respondent wife have come to an agreement with respect to the parenting arrangements for their child, X aged 6. I congratulate the parents on reaching that agreement. The parents and second respondent were not able to reach agreement with respect to the property application which was commenced by the wife by way of her Response to Final Orders Application dated 6 February 2024.
3. By way of background, the parents met online in June or July 2018, were married in mid to late 2018, separated on a final basis on 25 December 2021 or 1 January 2022, and divorced on 22 August 2023. It was a short relationship of only three years.
4. Today, the applicant husband appeared in person (despite there being a s102NA notation and the husband being in receipt of legal representation pursuant to the Cross-Examination Scheme through Victoria Legal Aid). The wife was represented by her solicitor, Mr Paramvir Singh of Sikand Solicitors Pty Ltd. The second respondent, the husband's niece, Ms B Lavan, was represented by Mr Peters of Counsel.
5. Mr H attended the hearing to observe and as a courtesy. He told the Court that the matter with respect to property did not resolve, and at this stage the parents and second respondent are not in an informed position, and nor are they adequately prepared, to understand what is likely to be the outcome of the financial proceedings. He stresses, correctly, that the parents and second respondent must be mindful of the costs-benefit of running these proceedings.
6. On review of the file, the mother has not filed her amended Response or trial material pursuant to my Orders dated 18 September 2025. The material was due to be filed by 15 October 2025, in advance of the mediation on 3 November 2025. The solicitor for the wife told the Court that the husband's material was filed late, resulting in delay on her behalf. The mother must file her documents. Uncontroversially, I extended the time for the wife to file to 18 November 2025.
7. This is a small property pool. It seems the primary asset, of which ownership is in dispute, is a home located at C Street, Suburb D. The property has ceased to be property of either the husband or wife. The property was built for the parents to live in, but they separated before construction completed. The husband and second respondent's position is that this property was sold to the husband's niece (the second respondent) as part of a bone fide, arms length transaction whereby the husband's niece paid out a significant mortgage affecting the property and forgave some alleged debt owed by the father to the niece and her husband. The wife's position is that the transfer was not bone fide and represents an attempt by the husband to remove the asset from the property pool, and from the reach of the wife and to defeat her anticipated property settlement entitlement. The wife seeks the sale be set aside.
8. The husband's financial summary filed 16 October 2025 states that the husband owns $6,000 in property and has $8,000 in liabilities. His financial statement states that he is a truck driver with a modest income of $850 per week. His affidavit states that he is a construction worker. He says he has disposed of two assets: the Suburb D property, and a property at E Street, Suburb F, as to which he says the property was owned by the husband's business but that "the business was unsuccessful".
9. The wife's most recent Financial Statement (filed 6 February 2024) states an income of $1,400 per week. She claims a 50% ownership in the property at Suburb D. She has two cars, and a modest interest in the franchise cleaning service that employs her. Even considering her claim to the Suburb D property, her total property stated in Part B of the Financial Statement amounts to less than $700,000. Her material thus far appears silent as to the Suburb F property.
10. The basis of the second respondent's claim to the Suburb D property is that she purchased the property from her uncle, the applicant, for the agreed purchase price of $660,000 which she says reflected the true market value of the property. The second respondent says that $528,000 was owed by the husband to his mortgagor (ANZ Bank) referable to the Suburb D property. The second respondent took out a loan in her own name from G Pty Ltd to discharge the ANZ loan, and the remaining purchase price ($132,000) was forgiveness of a debt said to be owing by the husband to the second respondent and her husband, being a series of personal loans advanced by the second respondent and her husband over the period 8 February 2019 to 21 April 2022. The second respondent says that in early 2022 she made multiple requests to recover the loans from the applicant. The applicant then agreed in around July 2022 to sell the property to the second respondent in order to settle his liabilities. The second respondent was joined to the proceedings by way orders of Senior Judicial Registrar Kourtis on 21 August 2024. She rejects the wife's claim and seeks to be excused from the proceedings. She has not been excused. She is a party. She has all of the rights and responsibilities of a party.
11. My preliminary view of the material is that the parties may not have been forthcoming with their disclosures as to financial circumstances, both to each other and to the Court. The husband's disclosed income is $850 a week, but he states he is gainfully employed in the construction industry (from his affidavit) or as a truck driver (his financial statement). He states he works as a part-time labourer but does not explain why he is incapable of working on a full-time basis, particularly given the precariousness of his financial situation as deposed to within his financial statement. The wife has not yet filed her trial material or undertaking as to disclosure. The second respondent has filed her Response, trial affidavit and financial statement but has not yet filed her undertaking as to disclosure despite my order that she do so by 30 September 2025.
12. On 27 August 2025 I ordered, inter alia, that:
    1. Within 14 days of this Order, the second respondent deliver to the practitioners for the applicant and the first respondent a copy of each and every document which corroborates the alleged loan advances to the father totalling $132,000 including but not limited to bank statements, receipts, invoices and other memoranda. The provision of such documents is to be free of cost for any photocopying or reproduction, given the apparent failure of the Second Respondent to disclose these documents to date.
    2. Within 21 days of this Order, the applicant likewise deliver to the practitioners for the respondent and second respondent a copy of any documents, bank statements, receipts, invoices and other memoranda evidencing the alleged loan owed by him to the second respondent at no cost to the first or second respondent together with copy documents or thins evidencing how any advance (or part thereof) was applied.
13. Clearly, neither party responded adequately to the Order. The bank statements and/or loan documents are not referred to in the affidavits of the husband or the second respondent.
14. This matter, as it is currently prepared, is not ready for a final hearing on 27 January 2026, estimated to take four days due to the need for interpreters, mainly for the husband. The parties should bear in mind that each bears an onus of proving the case for which he/she contends. A poorly prepared case is unlikely to succeed.
15. The husband would have been assisted today by the attendance of his solicitor. I understand no cross-examination is envisaged at a private mediation. However, a s102NA funded practitioner can claim for negotiating settlement of a matter prior to final hearing with respect to parenting proceedings, which this mediation clearly covered (seeing as a consent position was produced).[1]
16. It would have been of benefit to this case to have the husband's s102NA lawyer attend the mediation. It may be that the parties will have to have a second mediation once their respective property cases are prepared. However, it appears that today they have squandered an opportunity to meaningfully mediate financial matters with Mr H by not being adequately prepared. The practitioners for the parties can contact my Chambers via ...@fcfcoa.gov.au if they seek further directions to facilitate a further mediation or to get the matter ready for trial.

I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett.

[1] See https://www.handbook.vla.vic.gov.au/node/6155, item 3A.3.