Sandos & Sandos (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 635 (10 September 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 the pseudonym Sandos & Sandos has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These reasons determine an Application in a Proceeding of the second respondent, S Pty Ltd and the fourth respondent, Ms Feldt filed on 18 August 2025, and an Application in a Proceeding of the third respondent, Mr Provenza filed on 22 August 2025. Each seek a separate issue hearing of the relief sought by Ms Sandos ("the wife") affecting their interests.
2. To give some context to the procedural application, the wife, who is 69 years of age, and Mr Sandos ("the husband"), who is 67 years of age, commenced cohabitation in 1978 and married in 1982. There are three children of the marriage. They are now all adults. The husband contends separation occurred on 14 October 2014 and that he continued to live in the same home as the wife until she "locked [him] out" in January 2022. The wife contends the parties separated in January 2022. The husband is a professional in two sectors. During the marriage and thereafter, he operated trading enterprises conducting financial services, and property related services. Throughout the marriage the parties accumulated a number of real properties, held personally and through corporate structures.
3. The wife filed an Initiating Application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) on 28 February 2024, seeking orders adjusting the property between she and the husband pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). By way of his Response to Final Orders filed on 2 April 2024, as amended on 16 December 2024, the husband sought different orders as to the adjustment of property. The proceedings were transferred to this Court on 12 November 2024. On 27 February 2025, S Pty Ltd was joined to the proceeding. On 4 July 2025 Mr Provenza and Ms Feldt were joined.
4. The wife seeks, amongst other relief, in her further (Amended) Initiating Application filed on 15 May 2025:
   1. That the Court determine the relief in the Amended Points of Claim filed 13 May 2025.
   2. Upon the relief being granted in the Amended Points of Claim filed 13 May 2025, the Husband shall transfer the real property located at [Property 1, 2, and 3 at T Street, City U] NSW [...] and/or his shares in [S Pty Ltd] ACN [...], to the Wife.

1. The wife in her (Amended) Points of Claim filed on 7 July 2025 seeks:
   1. Declaration that the Second Respondent is and was at all material times, the alter ego of the First Respondent Husband.
   2. Alternatively, to [1] above, declaration that while being director(s) and shareholder(s)of the Second Respondent, the Proposed Third Respondent and Proposed Fourth Respondent were at all material times the puppet(s) of the First Respondent Husband, as their puppet master.
   3. Declaration that the Second Respondent holds its interest in [Property 1, 2, and 3 at T Street, City U], NSW (Property) on resulting trust for the First Respondent Husband and the entities that he controls in the proportions that he and those entities contributed to the purchase of the Property by the Second Respondent on 10 March 2014.
   4. Declaration that the Second Respondent holds its interest in the Property on constructive trust and or subject to an equitable charge in favour of the First Respondent Husband and entities that he controls in such proportion that they paid towards the mortgage secured by and the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the Property, after its acquisition.
   5. Alternatively to [3] and [4] above, Declaration that the Proposed Third Respondent holds his share in the Second Respondent on trust for the First Respondent Husband and entities that he controls in such proportion that the First Respondent Husband and his entities contributed to the net equity of the Second Respondent by the payments they made to or on behalf of the Second Respondent to enable it to acquire the Property.
   6. Further to [5] above, Declaration that the Proposed Third Respondent and or Proposed Fourth Respondent hold their shares in the Second Respondent on trust for the First Respondent Husband and the entities he controls in the proportion that the First Respondent and those entities contributed to the net equity of the Second Respondent by the payments they made to or on behalf of the Second Respondent towards the mortgage secured by and the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the Property, after its acquisition.

6A Declaration that in all the circumstances, the Property and or the shares in [S Pty Ltd] are property of [Mr Sandos] within that meaning in the Family Law Act 1975.

1. Order that the Second Respondent convey its interest in the Property to the First Respondent Husband.

2. Further, Order that the Proposed Third and Proposed Fourth Respondent(s) convey their shares in the Second Respondent to the First Respondent Husband.

8A Alternatively, declaration that in all the circumstances, the Property and or the shares in [S Pty Ltd] are a financial resource of [Mr Sandos].

1. Such other orders the Court thinks fit.

2. Costs

(As per the original)

1. On 24 July 2025, the second respondent, S Pty Ltd and the fourth respondent, Ms Feldt filed a Response to Final Orders and a defence to the wife's (Amended) Points of Claim, each opposing the relief the wife seeks in so far as it relates to them. On 31 July 2024, the third respondent, Mr Provenza filed a response to the wife's (Amended) Points of Claim and a Response to Final Orders on 20 August 2025. Mr Provenza also opposes the relief sought by the wife in so far as it relates to him. On 20 August 2025 the husband filed a sophisticated and comprehensive response to the wife's (Amended) Points of Claim using what appears to be the same font, style, and specialised language as that used by S Pty Ltd and Ms Feldt in their pleading. He too opposes the relief sought by the wife.
2. The wife opposes the relief sought by each of the second to fourth respondents for a separate issue hearing. The husband supports the application for a separate issue hearing.
3. For the reasons that follow, the Application in a Proceeding of each of S Pty Ltd and Ms Feldt filed on 18 August 2025, and the Application in a Proceeding of Mr Provenza filed on 22 August 2025, will be dismissed. The balance of relief as sought by the wife in her Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed on 4 September 2025, as to orders facilitating, the obtaining of ch 7 single expert valuation evidence, as to disclosure, and as to the preservation of a property at V Street, Suburb W, together with any applications as to costs arising from this determination, will be adjourned for hearing on 24 September 2025 in person. The substantive proceedings will be listed for case management on that day. As advised during the hearing, the tentative listing of the substantive proceeding for final hearing over five days, as a reserve matter commencing on 17 November 2025, will be insofar as is necessary, vacated as a consequence of changes to the judicial calendar.

1. S Pty Ltd was incorporated in late 2006. Mr Provenza was the director and held its one issued share. Mr Provenza is a long-term friend of the husband.
2. In March 2014, being proximate to the husband's contended date of separation, S Pty Ltd completed the purchase of real properties at Property 1, 2, and 3 at T Street, City U for $1,550,000, sourced in part from a National Australia Bank loan of $1,245,000.
3. The wife's pleaded case is that Mr Provenza had insufficient property and resources to enable S Pty Ltd to complete the acquisition, and that the husband provided the balance to the corporation to complete the acquisition. She pleads, with particularity, the date and source of the funds said to originate from the husband or corporations he controlled. Both the husband and Mr Provenza plead that Mr Provenza provided monies to the husband in 2012 and 2013, that the husband then applied those funds to the deposit on his behalf, either to S Pty Ltd or directly to others on behalf of S Pty Ltd. Save and except as to a broad assertion, each of the husband and Mr Provenza do not particularise the dates of each of these payments, their source, the process of payment and the account into which any funds were received.
4. The wife pleads that after the acquisition the husband, from 2014 until 2021, provided instructions to professionals and experts, including lawyers, to progress the development of the site combining the three S Pty Ltd properties; that he or entities he controlled paid monies to S Pty Ltd to meet these fees; or that entities he controlled paid those fees directly. She further pleads communication between lawyers and the husband on behalf of S Pty Ltd to obtain easements to facilitate the development approval sought by the corporation, and that the lawyers identified S Pty Ltd as "his company".
5. The points of claim pleaded by the wife include a dense and complex series of transactions expanding over 80 paragraphs with sub-paragraphs that deal with up to 12 different corporations in which the husband is said to have a direct or indirect interest in funding S Pty Ltd from 2014 until 2024. The pleaded facts are particularised by a 73-page schedule of financial transactions pursuant to s 50 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Broadly, she claims that the husband has dealt with his property interests by divesting and diluting them to non-marriage third parties and that those parties have conducted themselves at his direction and ultimately for his benefit.
6. The pleadings of both the husband and Mr Provenza deny the critical facts asserted in the wife's particulars but otherwise give little other information or context. Mr Provenza additionally, in repeated responses to many of the wife's particulars, says that he is unable to respond until he is "able to review all the evidence that has been provided during the course of the matter".
7. The wife says that the three City U sites owned by S Pty Ltd have deferred five-storey residential development approval. The properties have not yet been valued by a ch 7 single expert.
8. Adding a further layer of complexity, on 30 December 2022, after the date of separation as contended by the wife, documents were submitted to ASIC by Mr Provenza recording that in January 2021, S Pty Ltd issued two further shares to Ms Feldt. This resulted in Ms Feldt holding two thirds of the issued shares in S Pty Ltd and Mr Provenza holding one third. Mr Provenza resigned as a director of S Pty Ltd. Ms Feldt was appointed as the sole director. The wife pleads that Ms Feldt was or is an employee of the husband and was or is in a romantic relationship with him. Ms Feldt submits that this is irrelevant.
9. The reason pleaded by the corporation itself and Ms Feldt for the issue of the additional shares in S Pty Ltd, and whatever the value of the consideration paid for them, was "in recognition of [Ms Feldt's] contributions to [S Pty Ltd] historically and in the future". The value of the consideration and the contributions are not particularised.
10. The wife's multifaceted case for her claim that either the husband transfer to her the City U properties, or the shares in S Pty Ltd, is summarised in her (Amended) Points of Claim:
    1. When [Mr Sandos] made payments to and or on behalf of [S Pty Ltd] to enable it to complete the Contract to acquire the Property, he did so with the intent that he would benefit personally by either:
       1. Intending that his payments directly or indirectly to the vendor to enable [S Pty Ltd] to complete the Contract would result in him and or the entities that he controlled from which money was sourced for that purpose would have a resulting benefit by way of an equitable interest in the Property held on trust for him and or them by [S Pty Ltd]; and or
       2. Believing he was in a relationship with [Mr Provenza] by which he was the puppet master and [Mr Provenza] was his puppet so he could direct [Mr Provenza] to do as he wished as sole director and shareholder of [S Pty Ltd] to benefit [Mr Sandos] and those entities in the manner described in paragraph [7365(a)] above, including to the detriment of [Ms Sandos]; and or
       3. Reaching an agreement with [Mr Provenza] by which [Mr Provenza]:
          1. In his capacity as director of [S Pty Ltd] agreed with [Mr Sandos] for a form of undisclosed consideration that [S Pty Ltd] would hold its interest in the Property on implied or express trust and or by way of equitable charge for [Mr Sandos] and his entities in the proportion(s) that reflected [Mr Sandos] and his entities' financial contributions to the purchase of the Property; and or
          2. In his capacity as shareholder of [S Pty Ltd] promised to [Mr Sandos] for a form of undisclosed consideration that he would hold a part of the value of his share in [S Pty Ltd] on implied or express trust and or by way of equitable charge for [Mr Sandos] in the proportion that reflected [Mr Sandos] and his entities' financial contributions to the value of the equity in [S Pty Ltd] by enabling it to acquire the Property.

Particulars of Alleged Agreement

1. The precises nature and extent of the alleged agreement in (c) above is not known to [Ms Sandos] but with the benefit of the documents and payments particularised above she alleges that they are able to be inferred from the facts matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 73 above. As such, the following further particulars are provided.

2. The alleged agreement was between [Mr Sandos] and Mr Provenza].

3. The alleged agreement was partly express and partly implied.

1. To the degree the agreement was partly express it was oral and or written and comprised of conversations and email and other forms of written communication between [Mr Sandos] and [Mr Provenza].

2. To the degree the agreement was implied, it was implied and or can be inferred from the facts, matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 73 above.

3. The terms of the agreement were partly express and partly implied.

4. To the degree the terms were partly express, they were expressed in the conversations and email and other forms of written communication between [Mr Sandos] and [Mr Provenza] in 4 above.

5. To the degree the terms were partly implied, they were implied by and or can be inferred from the facts, matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 73 above.

6. The nature and effect of the alleged agreement is as pleaded in paragraph 73(c) above.

7. When [Mr Sandos] made payments to and or on behalf of [S Pty Ltd] after [S Pty Ltd's] acquisition of the Property, he did so with the intent that he would benefit personally by either:

   1. Intending that his payments directly or indirectly to [S Pty Ltd], NAB or any other third party would result in him and or the entities that he controlled from which money was sourced for that purpose would have a benefit to him and or them by way of an equitable interest in the Property held on implied or express trust and or by way of equitable charge by [S Pty Ltd]; and or
   2. Believing he was in a relationship with [Mr Provenza] and later [Ms Feldt] by which he was the puppet master and [Mr Provenza] and later [Ms Feld]t were his puppet(s) so he could direct them to do as he wished as the director and shareholder of [S Pty Ltd] to benefit [Mr Sandos] and his entities in the manner described in paragraph [74 66(a)] above, including to the detriment of [Ms Sandos]; and or
   3. Reaching an agreement(s) with [Mr Provenza] and or [Ms Feldt] jointly or with them each by which either or both of them:

      1. In their capacity as director(s) of [S Pty Ltd] at material times promised to [Mr Sandos] for a form of undisclosed consideration that [S Pty Ltd] would hold its interest in the Property on a form of express or implied trust or by way of equitable charge for [Mr Sandos] and his entities in the proportion(s) that reflected [Mr Sandos] and his entities' ongoing financial contributions to payments towards the mortgage secured by and the maintenance and improvement of the Property.

      2. In their capacity as shareholders of [S Pty Ltd] promised to [Mr Sandos] for a form of undisclosed consideration that they would hold a part of the value of their shares in [S Pty Ltd] on implied or express trust and or by way of equitable charge for [Mr Sandos] in the proportion that reflected [Mr Sandos] and his entities' ongoing financial contributions to payments towards the mortgage secured by and the maintenance and improvement of the Property.

Particulars of Alleged Agreement(s)

1. The precises nature and extent of the alleged agreement(s) are not known to [Ms Sandos] but with the benefit of the documents and payments particularised above she alleges that they are able to be inferred from the facts matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 74 above. As such, the following further particulars are provided.

2. The alleged agreement(s) were between [Mr Sandos] and [Mr Provenza] and [Ms Feldt] jointly or with them each.

3. The alleged agreements were partly express and partly implied.

4. To the degree the agreement(s) were partly express they were oral and or written and comprised in conversations and email and other forms of written communication between [Mr Sandos] and [Mr Provenza] and [Ms Feldt].

5. To the degree the agreement(s) were implied, they were implied by and or can be inferred from the facts, matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 74 above.

6. The terms of the agreement(s) were partly express and partly implied.

7. To the degree the terms were partly express, they were expressed in the conversations and email and other forms of written communication between [Mr Sandos] and [Mr Provenza] and [Ms Feldt] in 4 above.

8. To the degree the terms were partly implied, they were implied by and or can be inferred from the facts, matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 74 above.

9. The nature and effect of the alleged agreement(s) is as pleaded in paragraph 74(c) above.

10. In the premises of the facts, matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 74 above, [S Pty Ltd] is and was at all material times, the alter ego of [Mr Sandos].

11. Alternatively to paragraph 75 above, and in the premises of the facts, matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 75 above, during their times as director and shareholder(s) of [S Pty Ltd], [Mr Provenza] and or [Ms Feldt] were always and continue to be the puppet(s) of [Mr Sandos] as the puppet master.

12. Further in the premises of the facts, matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 76 above, [S Pty Ltd] holds its interest in the Property on resulting trust for [Mr Sandos] and the entities of which he controls in the proportions that he and those entities are found to have contributed to the purchase of the Property by [S Pty Ltd].

13. Further in the premises of the facts, matters and circumstances in paragraphs 1 to 77 above, [S Pty Ltd] holds that proportion of its interest in the Property that represents the value of any payments that [Mr Sandos] and entities that he controls towards the mortgage secured by and the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the Property on implied or express trust and or by way of equitable charge for [Mr Sandos] and those entities in the relevant proportions.

1. Each of the husband and the other respondents deny the wife's contentions and the claim.
2. The second to fourth respondents inclusive each seek that the relief identified in Orders 5 and 6 of the wife's further (Amended) Initiating Application progressed by the (Amended) Points of Claim of the wife filed on 7 July 2025 be heard "separately and before" the remainder of the s 79 proceeding.

1. Rule 10.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") provides that:

10.10 Application for separate decision

(1) A party may apply for a decision on any issue, if the decision may:

(a) dispose of all or part of the proceeding; or

(b) make a trial unnecessary; or

(c) make a trial substantially shorter; or

(d) save substantial costs.

(2) An application under this rule must be made by filing an application in accordance with the approved form.

1. Rule 10.11 of the Rules further provides that:

(1) On an application under this Part, the court may:

(a) dismiss any part of the proceeding; or

(b) decide an issue; or

(c) make a final order on any issue; or

(d) order a hearing about an issue or fact; or

(e) with the consent of the parties, order arbitration about the proceeding or a part of the proceeding.

(2) If the court makes orders against a party who is claiming relief against the party who obtains the orders, the court may stay execution on, or other enforcement of, the orders until determination of that claim.

1. Relevant principles applicable to the exercise of discretion pursuant to the Rule were identified in Willmann & Willmann (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC1F 827 at [23] - [29]. In particular:
   1. For the purposes of [r 10.10 of the Rules], the word "issue" may be an issue of fact or an issue of law. The construction of [r 10.10 of the Rules] is broad, providing the Court with a wide discretion to utilise the powers identified in the Rule with reference to the Act.

...

1. The starting position in this contest is that all questions of fact and law should be heard and finally determined together, unless there is a good reason to order the separate determination of a particular issue that in doing so would give effect to the overarching purpose of the Rules and the [Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ("the FCFCOA Act")] (see Tom Folino-Gallo & Sons Investments Pty Ltd v Zulian [2019] NSWSC 596). The Court's task in determining whether such warrant exists requires a balancing of considerations as to whether the separate listing will achieve a just determination in the circumstances of this case, efficiently using the resources of the Court so as to dispose of the proceedings in a timely manner at a financial and resource-based cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute.

1. In submissions, each party made reference to some of the considerations to be taken into account in determining whether to make an order for a separate determination of an issue in a proceeding as set out by McClelland DCJ in Marley & Ormonde [2020] FamCA 1046.
2. There is merit to the submissions of the non-marriage respondents that the overarching obligations codified in s 95 of the Act and r 1.04 of the Rules - mandating the determination of litigation according to law as quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently as possible - may operate to some extent to temper the general rule as to the cautious approach to the discretionary power to order a separate determination of an issue in a proceeding. That said, while s 95 of the Act and r 1.04 are to be given effect, they do not operate to confine the broad discretion in making a procedural determination as to a separate issue hearing when regard is had to the particular issues and dynamics in a proceeding. It may be that those very provisions direct discretion away from ordering a separate issue hearing.
3. The non-marriage respondents additionally submit that the claim against them is "distinct and separate" from the remainder of the s 79 proceeding, citing that no allegation is made by the wife that they have any interests in any other assets sought to be adjusted, other than S Pty Ltd, or the properties owned by that corporation.
4. The non-marriage respondents identify that the husband and wife filed a draft joint collaborative balance sheet on 16 December 2024, that the wife's asserted value of their property for adjustment was $25,849,340, and that her asserted value of S Pty Ltd at that time was $3 million, being 11 per cent of that pool of property. This superficially directs merit to the consideration of a separate issue hearing, coupled with the non-marriage respondents being "unwilling litigants" in the proceeding, save for their involvement in S Pty Ltd. They unsurprisingly do not wish to be burdened with other aspects of the s 79 litigation, submitting that a separate issue hearing will reduce their costs. They submit that it is unlikely that the wife will give evidence in that separate issue hearing, her case being promoted by way of an evaluation of transactions grounded from documents.
5. The wife asserts longstanding significant disclosure failures by the husband over the course of the litigation to date, not only as then required pursuant to the Rules, but also as to compliance with orders directing disclosure.
6. While pleadings define the issues between the parties, those issues are determined by evidence. The (Amended) Points of Claim articulate the integers of the case prosecuted by the wife against the non-marriage respondents. That pleading identifies, as an issue in the s 79 litigation, the financial conduct of the husband over an extended period of time, shrouded through a density of interrelated financial transactions between up to 12 interrelated corporations ultimately for the benefit of S Pty Ltd.
7. While the husband is the key to many of these transactions, on the wife's case, each of the non-marriage respondents form an integral part of many the transactions. These transactions interrelate with the interests of the husband and the wife in the other identified corporations, each then in turn being items of significant value in the draft balance sheet.
8. The wife has identified the likelihood of an application to further amend the pleadings upon the disclosure of further documents and information relevant to that financial conduct. Section 79(3) of the Act mandates that the Court must identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties and only that existing property is to be divided or adjusted (Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126). For the purposes of Pt VIII litigation, this engages in this matter directly with s 71B of the Act, being the recently amended legislative mandate as to disclosure.
9. Section 71B of the Act now provides:

Duty of disclosure in proceedings

(1) Each party to a proceeding relating to financial or property matters of a marriage (other than proceedings on appeal) has a duty to the court and to each other party to give full and frank disclosure, in a timely manner, of all information and documents relevant to:

(a) for a party to the marriage - the issues in the proceeding that relate to financial or property matters of the marriage; or

(b) for any other party to the proceeding - so much of the party's financial circumstances as are relevant to the issues in the proceeding that relate to financial or property matters of the marriage.

(2) The duty under subsection (1) applies from the start of the proceeding and continues until the proceeding is finalised.

Duty of disclosure while preparing for proceedings

(5) If separated parties to a marriage are preparing for a proceeding relating to financial or property matters of the marriage (other than proceedings on appeal), each party has a duty to the other party to give full and frank disclosure, in a timely manner, of all information and documents relevant to the issues in the proposed proceeding that relate to financial or property matters of the marriage.

(6) The duty under subsection (5) applies at any time while the party is preparing for the proceeding.

1. The section requires each party to the proceeding disclose both documents and information in a timely manner relevant to the issues in the proceeding that relate to the financial or property matters of the marriage. The construction of the section also directs disclosure of context along with the documents and information, if relevant, by way of explanation. It directs a party not to merely assert, or to provide large volumes of material without explanation, or volumes in a haphazard or disordered fashion. By way of example, in this case, each of the husband and the non-marriage respondents are obligated to disclose all relevant documents and information in their possession or control in context as to the issues defined by the wife in her (Amended) Points of Claim. They are to engage, in so far as they are able, with the broader factual matrix of financial transactions to which they were parties, or of the husband, to the pleaded case to which they have knowledge. On the material before me, it appears that this is yet to occur.
2. The case pleaded by the wife, and the factual contest and issues, is not as narrow as that asserted by the non-marriage respondents. At this time in the litigation, conduct as between each of the parties and S Pty Ltd has a nexus to the other property interests of the husband and the wife.
3. Overlap of the evidence anticipated to be adduced on the proposed separate issue, and that at trial, is "on the cards", involving the same witnesses at both stages of the proceeding.
4. The ch 7 expert evidence as to value of the real property interests of S Pty Ltd and the value of the corporation itself, and the value of the remaining property interests of the husband and the wife, is still in its infancy. While I accept the submission of the non-marriage respondents that, notwithstanding three sets of orders to date, the completion of this process has encountered challenges not being of their making, in turn delaying the allocation of firm final trial dates. The completion of that evidence will further distil the integers of the wife's claim to achieve a just and equitable outcome engaging with the interest of the non-marriage respondents, not only to the value of her claim, but also as to the specie of the property making up that claim.
5. Consequently, having regard to the foregoing, the contentions made by each of the parties as to the contended length of any separate issue hearing, when compared to a hearing of all outstanding claims in a single trial event, together with the comparison of the value of contended costs associated with either procedure, were not unexpectedly, broad and elastic. Self-evidently:

(a) Particulars as to many contentions made in the pleadings are yet to be sought and/or provided; and

(b) The processes of disclosure are yet to be completed; and

(c) The parties have not filed their evidence in chief by way of affidavits.

1. I am unaware of the basis for the submissions made about judicial availability in this Court and this registry in relation to allocating a separate trial for three days or a longer single trial.
2. I do not accept that a determination of the claims made by the wife against the non-marriage respondents would likely facilitate a compromise or resolution of the s 79 proceedings as between the husband and the wife. Little or no consideration has been given to the prospect of an appeal from any separate issue determination, or as to any findings as to credit made in a separate issue determination in the event a witness in that hearing is to give evidence at a subsequent hearing heard by the same judge.
3. The scope of the current factual contests, subject to any derivatives subsequently created upon completion of disclosure, will further crystallise as the litigation pathway progresses. The content of trial affidavit evidence, at this time, remains subject to caveat. Each of these matters will impact on the content and duration of a separate issue hearing.
4. The dynamics of this matter will continue to be refined, as will the issues for determination in the substantive s 79 trial. That refinement awaits both the completion of litigation forensic and the filing of trial evidence.
5. The just determination of the proceeding, in the current circumstances of this case at this time, by way of the proposed separate issue hearing, would not produce an efficient use the resources of the Court so as to dispose of the proceedings in a timely manner at a financial and resource-based cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute. The relief sought by each of the second to fourth respondents for the allocation of a separate issue hearing will be dismissed.

1. As to the balance of the relief sought by the wife in her Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed on 4 September 2025 as to disclosure, the facilitation of ch 7 single expert evidence as to valuation, and the preservation of real property, the husband failed to comply with Order 3 made on 20 August 2025 to file and serve his response and affidavit. He said that he has been engaged in current Supreme Court litigation and preoccupied with servicing his 7,000 taxation and accounting clients at "tax time", albeit he said that he has disclosed over 2,000 pages of bank statements. The husband has the expertise to prepare, or cause to be prepared, the annual financial statements for all the entities to be valued by the ch 7 single expert for the financial year ending 30 June 2025. It is a matter for him as to how he prioritises that obligation as against his trading activities. The husband will receive an indulgence of an extension to comply with the Order 3 as made on 20 August 2025 to file material in response to that of the wife. The balance of the relief sought by the wife in her Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed on 4 September 2025 will be listed for hearing in short compass on 24 September 2025. It surprising that, in the shadow of this litigation, S Pty Ltd has not completed and disclosed its financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2025.
2. No opportunity was afforded for submissions as to costs sought on the relief for a separate issue hearing. Those applications for costs, if pressed, will also be listed for hearing on 24 September 2025.
3. For all of the aforementioned reasons, I make the following orders.

I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton.