Sandos & Sandos (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 923 (16 December 2025)

Ramsey & Ramsey (1983) FLC 91-301; [1982] FamCA 42

Salvage & Fosse (2020) FLC 93-966; [2020] FamCAFC 144

Sandos & Sandos [2025] FedCFamC1F 131

Sandos & Sandos (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 635

Strahan & Strahan (2011) FLC 93-466; [2011] FamCAFC 126

Swift & Swift [2020] FamCA 991

Tsiang & Wu and Ors (2019) FLC 93-911; [2019] FamCAFC 128

Zschokke and Zschokke (1996) FLC 92-693; [1996] FamCA 79

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

MR PROVENZA (and another named in the Schedule)

1. It be DECLARED, by way of enforcement, pursuant to r 11.07 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) that the amount owing by the husband to the wife at 12 December 2025 is:

(a) $52,500 by way of arrears of spouse maintenance pursuant to Order 1 made on 28 February 2025; and

(b) $7,500 by way of costs pursuant to Order 1 made on 30 June 2025.

1. The husband pay to the wife each of the sums declared by paragraph 1 hereof by 17 January 2026.
2. In the event the husband fails or neglects to pay such sum pursuant to paragraph 1 hereof on or before 17 January 2026, the wife, forthwith upon such failure or neglect, is appointed as the husband's trustee for sale of the property at X Street, Suburb Y ("the [Suburb Y] property"), and upon the completion of the sale, the proceeds shall be distributed in the following priority:

(a) In payment of an amount sufficient to discharge the loan secured by way of mortgage over the property, being the P Bank account bearing BSB [...] and Account Number ending...92;

(b) In payment of outstanding council and water rates;

(c) In payment of the real estate agent's commission and costs, advertising and legal expenses of sale;

(d) In payment of the wife's costs incurred in her capacity as trustee;

(e) In payment to the wife of the sums declared pursuant to paragraph 1 of these orders; and

(f) In payment of the balance to the husband.

1. On or before 31 January 2026, each of the husband and the wife shall file and serve an updated Undertaking as to Disclosure in compliance with ch 6 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
2. In the event either party seek an order for costs of or incidental to the orders made herein, they shall file on or before 20 January 2026, an Application in a Proceeding identifying with precision the orders as to costs sought, an affidavit in support thereof and short written submissions.
3. Any party responding to the Application in a Proceeding filed pursuant to Order 5 as to costs, shall file and serve on or before 6 February 2026, a Response to an Application in a Proceeding, an affidavit in support thereof and short written submissions.
4. Any application for costs filed pursuant to these orders will be determined in chambers.
5. Save and except as provided for by these orders, the Application in a Proceeding of the wife filed on 14 November 2025, as amended, and the Response to an Application in a Proceeding of the husband filed on 28 November 2025, are dismissed.

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 (No 3) 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 Ms Sandos ("the wife") filed on 14 November 2025, as amended in terms of Annexure C to the Case Outline of the wife filed on 4 December 2025, seeking orders for the sale of a real property owned by Mr Sandos ("the husband") at X Street, Suburb Y ("the [Suburb Y] property") and that the proceeds of the sale, after payment of an amount sufficient to discharge the mortgage secured upon the property and selling expenses, be applied to pay:

(a) Outstanding periodic spouse maintenance arrears of $52,500 by way of an order made on 28 February 2025 payable by the husband to the wife;

(b) Outstanding costs of $7,500 together with interest thereon by way of an order made on 30 June 2025 payable by the husband to the wife;

(c) A litigation funding order sought by the wife of $100,000; and

(d) To deposit the balance into a controlled monies account to be applied to meet the costs of preserving a real property at V Street, Suburb W ("the [V Street] property") owned by Z Pty Ltd ("[Z Pty Ltd]") and in meeting other liabilities of that corporation.

1. The husband in his Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed on 28 November 2025 seeks that the relief of the wife, as amended, be dismissed.
2. For the reasons that follow, the husband will have one month from the date of this judgment to pay the outstanding arrears of spouse maintenance and costs due to the wife in an aggregate sum of $60,000. In the event he fails or neglects to pay those monies within that timeframe, the wife is appointed as the husband's trustee for sale of the Suburb Y property to secure the payment of those monies. The wife's relief for interim property settlement/litigation funding and for injunctions for the preservation of property is dismissed.

1. The husband and the wife commenced cohabitation in 1978 and married in 1982. They separated either under the same roof in their home on 14 October 2014, or in January 2022, when the husband left the home. There are three adult children of the marriage.
2. 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 an Initiating Application filed on 2 April 2024, the husband sought different orders as to the adjustment of property. The proceedings were transferred to this Court on 12 November 2024.
3. On 27 February 2025, S Pty Ltd ("[S Pty Ltd]") was joined as the second respondent. On 4 July 2025, Mr Provenza and Ms Feldt were joined as the third and fourth respondents. The non-marriage parties did not participate in the interim hearing.
4. S Pty Ltd was incorporated on 3 October 2006. Mr Provenza was the director and held its one issued share. Mr Provenza is a long-term friend of the husband. 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 ("the [T Street] properties") for $1,550,000, sourced in part from a National Australia Bank loan of $1,245,000. On 27 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 at that time. Ms Feldt was appointed as the sole director.
5. On 28 February 2025, an order was made that the husband pay to the wife by way of spouse maintenance, $1,500 per week (Sandos & Sandos [2025] FedCFamC1F 131).
6. On 30 June 2025, an order was made that the husband pay the wife's costs of $7,500 on the discontinuance of an appeal from the order made on 28 February 2025.
7. The wife says that the T Street properties owned by S Pty Ltd have deferred a five-storey residential development approval. She claims that the husband has dealt with his property interests by divesting and diluting them to the non-marriage third parties and that those parties have conducted themselves at his direction and ultimately for his benefit (Sandos & Sandos (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 635).
8. The husband is a professional in two sectors. He operates two trading enterprises, B Pty Ltd, a financial service, and C Company, a property related service. The wife says that she has not been in formal employment outside of the husband's business, and that she worked in the husband's trading enterprises in an administrative role from time to time during their relationship but has not undertaken such work in over 20 years.
9. The proceedings have been plagued by assertions as to significant disclosure failures by the husband over the course of the litigation to date, not only as then required pursuant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules"), but also as to compliance with orders directing disclosure to, and the facilitation of, ch 7 single experts to value the property of the parties. The wife says that these failures and the constant requirement to relist the proceeding to achieve compliance with orders and the Rules have exponentially increased her costs. Her affidavit records her requests for documents and information made of the husband from mid-2025 until the current time and asserts his failures to respond or adequately respond. She asserts that these failures are continuing. The husband concedes some historic failures, but says that they have been rectified, and that he is complying with his disclosure obligations pursuant to the Act and the Rules. I am unable to determine these competing contentions on the evidence adduced at the interim hearing.
10. Each of the parties have been repeatedly warned in the management of the litigation as to their obligations to comply with their duties of disclosure of documents and information pursuant to s 71B of the Act and ch 6 of the Rules, and as to the range of consequences available if findings are made as to such failures. A direction will be made for each of the husband and the wife to file an updated undertaking as to compliance with their disclosure obligations.
11. The joint balance sheet filed by the parties on 16 December 2024 records the husband's assertion that the property of the parties is in the range of $19,000,000. It is uncontroversial that the husband controls a greater share of that property than the wife, comprising of corporate interests holding commercial premises. Neither party filed an updated Financial Statement for the interim hearing. The wife belatedly relied on her somewhat antique Financial Statement filed on 24 January 2025. The last Financial Statement of the husband was filed on 2 April 2025.
12. The wife by way of her Further Amended Initiating Application filed on 15 May 2025 seeks that the property of the parties be adjusted equally and that she receive in specie the husband's Suburb Y property; a real property owned at AA Street, Suburb BB by O Company; a real property at CC Street, Suburb DD owned by Q Pty Ltd; and the T Street properties held by S Pty Ltd. She seeks to retain her shareholding and interests in Z Pty Ltd and she seeks a superannuation splitting order from the husband's member entitlement in the parties' self-managed superannuation fund.
13. The husband by way of his Further Amended Response to an Initiating Application filed on 16 December 2024 seeks "80 [per cent] of the asset pool based on the balance sheet" including that he retains his property at Suburb Y and that the wife transfer to him her shareholding in and interest in Z Pty Ltd.
14. The husband is the sole owner of the Suburb Y property. A ch 7 single expert has opined that it has a value of $800,000. It is leased to a tenant and subject to a mortgage of $529,000. A capital gains tax liability will crystalise on its disposal.
15. The ch 7 single expert evidence as to the value of the parties' real property interests is in the process of being completed. The ch 7 single expert evidence as to the value of trust and corporate interests is in its embryonic stages. The matter is next listed for case management on 9 March 2026. Directions have been made for the parties to file an updated joint balance sheet upon the ch 7 single expert valuation evidence completing. If it is available at that time, consideration will be given to listing the matter for trial.
16. The husband and the wife were the shareholders of Z Pty Ltd. On 24 February 2024, the wife absent her knowledge, became the sole director of Z Pty Ltd. The corporation owns two real properties, the first being EE Street, Suburb FF ("the [Suburb FF] property") subject to a mortgage. The husband's corporation manages the rental of that property. The second is Property 1 at V Street. The husband and a son of the parties, through a corporation, own the neighbouring Property 2 at V Street, Suburb W.
17. The wife asserts that the husband continued to manage Z Pty Ltd's financial affairs after February 2024, including receiving its income and causing it to accrue significant liabilities.
18. In August 2025, the City of Sydney Council issued an order pursuant to s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) ("the Local Government Act") requiring Z Pty Ltd by 10 September 2025 to arrange works on Property 1 at V Street and ensure that it did not collapse and become a danger to the public and neighbouring properties. The order required Z Pty Ltd to engage a structural engineer to recommend the works required to be carried out on the property, for council's approval to be obtained for the works, for the erection of a hoarding on the property, and to obtain a further engineer's report after completion of the works to certify the safety of the building. The wife is in the process of receiving high level recommendations from an engineer. She has received estimates as to the hire and installation of a hoarding and demolition of the building in the range of $100,000 to $110,000.
19. By way of implementation of Order 12 made by consent on 24 September 2025, the wife became the sole shareholder and director of Z Pty Ltd. The wife says that after the implementation of that order:

(a) She has endeavoured unsuccessfully to dissolve the husband's practical role in the management of Z Pty Ltd. She gives evidence as to the husband not responding to her requests for disclosure and documents including tenancy agreements for the Suburb FF property, and as to some of Z Pty Ltd's liabilities.

(b) She has attempted to ensure that Z Pty Ltd meets its liabilities and obligations. She has ascertained that Z Pty Ltd owes in excess of $20,000 to Revenue NSW for a carparking space and owes in excess of $9,000 in outstanding strata fees. She has also ascertained that Z Pty Ltd is engaged in disputes as to rental bonds for the Suburb FF property valued at about $16,000 and has an overdue taxation debt of about $4,000. The husband manages the rental of the Suburb FF property. The wife identifies that in October 2025, the rental income was insufficient to pay expenses. Neither the wife nor Z Pty Ltd have funds available to meet these liabilities.

(c) The City of Sydney Council in late October 2025 advised that Property 1 at V Street poses an immediate safety risk to adjoining properties requiring expeditious attention. The wife seeks to avoid the Council imposing penalties or fines for a failure to comply with the Local Government Act order and foreshadowed the possibility of a Land and Environment Court prosecution.

(d) In November 2025, the wife received notice from the National Australia Bank that Z Pty Ltd's accounts were overdrawn. Bank loans are secured over both the Suburb FF property and Property 1 at V Street.

1. The ch 7 single expert could not access Property 1 at V Street for the purposes of a valuation. The husband asserts that the property is valued in the range of $1,400,000 subject to a mortgage in the range of $186,000. No evidence was adduced to support these assertions. The wife has not obtained an appraisal as to the "as is" value of Property 1 at V Street.
2. The wife further complains that the husband continues to exert physical control over the assets of the O Family Trust ("the Trust"). The Trust holds property at L Street, Suburb M subject to a mortgage in the range of $895,000. The wife is the shareholder of the trustee. The husband's corporation manages the rental of that property. The Trust receives rental income of between $11,000 to $12,500 each month and has $8,723 in mortgage repayments due each month. The balance of rental monies are deposited into the Trust's bank accounts. The last set of financial statements of the trust were not adduced into evidence.
3. The wife says that the husband's failure to provide documents and information as she has requested has caused her failure to comply with an order made on 24 September 2025 for she to prepare her personal and the Trust's taxation returns and financial statements.
4. As to litigation funding, the wife has met her current paid legal fees through a litigation funding loan from GG Company of $183,658.25. The interest rate on the facility is 9.85 per cent. The current repayment amount is $203,339.98. the credit limit on the facility is $200,000. Her solicitors have provided her with an estimate as to the total fees payable at the conclusion of the final hearing being in the range of $311,000.
5. The husband does not have legal representatives in these proceedings. The wife asserts that he has legal representation in current Supreme Court litigation and that she does not know how he funds his representation in those proceedings.
6. The husband has not paid periodic spouse maintenance as ordered for more than 30 weeks. The wife's savings are being exhausted. She has obtained financial assistance from her daughter. She applied $13,200 she received by way of costs from the non-marriage parties in late October 2025 to supplement her savings. The wife adduced into evidence a corporate bank statement recording the husband using corporate funds to meet travel and other expenses in Europe in June 2025. Her request for disclosure as to these payments and as to the cost of the trip were met with a response that her request was "irrelevant and unreasonable".

...

Sale of [Suburb Y]

1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of these Orders, the Husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to cause the property situated at and known as [X Street], [Suburb Y] ("the [Suburb Y] property") to be listed for sale in accordance with the sale conditions contained in Order 3 below, and for the proceeds of sale to be distributed in the following manner and priority:

2.1 In payment of the agent's commission, advertising and legal expenses of sale;

2.2 In payment of outstanding council and water rates;

2.3 In discharge of the loan secured by way of mortgage over the [Suburb Y] property, being the [P Bank] account bearing BSB [...] and Account Number [...92], with the categorisation of any arrears as at the time of settlement to be determined at final hearing;

2.4 In payment to the Wife via the Coleman Greig Lawyers Trust Account, Coleman Greig Lawyers Pty Ltd Law Practice Trust Account, BSB: [...], Account Number [...13] ("the CG solicitor's trust account"):

2.4.1 Unpaid Costs Order made on 30 June 2025 in the amount of $7,500, together with interest pursuant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) with such sum to be categorised as a partial property settlement of the Husband;

2.4.2 Unpaid spousal maintenance pursuant to order 1 of the orders made on 28 February 2025 in the amount of $1,500 each Monday from 14 April 2025 to-date less any payments made by the Husband from the date of these orders if applicable (see notation A) with such sum to be categorised as a partial property settlement of the Husband;

2.4.3 A sum sufficient to discharge the GG Company debt owing by the Wife; and

2.4.4 A sum of $150,000 $100,000 by way of interim costs to the Wife;

2.5 The balance, if any, to be held in an interest-bearing controlled monies account by Coleman Greig Lawyers on behalf of the parties pending further Order or agreement between the parties (subject to order 3 and 4 below).

3.1 The Wife, in her capacity as Director of [Z Pty Ltd], shall be at liberty to apply those funds to preserve the property of [Z Pty Ltd], including but not limited to [Property 1 at V Street], [Suburb W] (as contemplated by order 13 of the orders made on 24 September 2025).

Payments from Controlled Monies Account

4. That, for the purposes of order 2.5 above:

4.1 The Wife's solicitor shall notify the Husband in writing of the payments pursuant to order 2.4 above being made ("the payment date");

4.2 In the event that, on the first Monday following the payment date the Husband has not complied with order 1 of the orders made on 28 February 2025, then:

4.2.1 The sum of $100,000, or the remaining proceeds following payments pursuant to orders 2.1 to 2.4 are made, whichever is lesser, shall remain in the CG trust account;

4.2.2 The balance, if any, shall be deposited in an interest-bearing controlled monies account;

4.2.3 The Wife's solicitor shall, from the funds retained pursuant to order 4.2.1 above, be permitted to, on the Monday which immediately follows the Husband's default, pay to the Wife via her nominated bank account the sum of $1,500 each Monday in satisfaction of the Husband's obligations pursuant to order 1 of the orders made on 28 February 2025;

4.2.4 For the purposes of order 4.2.3 above:

(a) These orders act as sufficient authority for the accounts department of Coleman Greig Lawyers to process the payments contemplated by order 4.2.3 above;

(b) The Wife's solicitor shall provide a monthly trust account statement to the Husband confirming the payments made pursuant to order 4.2.3;

4.2.5 Such payments are to be categorised as a partial property settlement of the Husband;

4.3 In relation to the preservation of the property of [Z Pty Ltd], the following shall occur:

4.3.1 That the Wife's solicitor shall notify the Husband in writing of any and all expenses, payments, fees, charges, penalties or liabilities that are or become owing by [Z Pty Ltd], which exceed the available balance of the Account ending [...69], including but not limited to:

(a) Any funds loaned to [Z Pty Ltd] by the Wife by way of meeting any expenses upfront, such loan to be deemed repayable in full immediately;

(b) Any and all mortgage arrears;

(c) Any and all overdrawn amounts on the Account ending [...69];

(d) All costs arising from compliance with the Order issued by the City of Sydney Council on [...] August 2025 in respect to [Property 1 at V Street], [Suburb W];

(e) Any and all strata levies; and

(f) Any and all taxation liabilities;

4.3.2 That in the event that the Husband fails to confirm in writing full payment of any liability referred to in order 4.3.1, including documentary proof of payment, within twenty-four (24) hours of the payment falling due or of the Wife's request (whichever is later), then:

(a) The amount/s payable, as stated within the Wife's request, shall be distributed from the Coleman Greig Lawyers' Controlled Monies Account into the CG trust account, and thereafter paid to the payee, as identified in the Wife's request; and

(b) These orders act as sufficient authority for the accounts department of Coleman Greig Lawyers to process the payments contemplated by order 4.3.2(a) above; and

(c) The Wife's solicitor shall provide proof of the payments contemplated by order 4.3.2(a) within seven (7) days of such payment occurring; and

(d) Such payments are to be categorised as a partial property settlement of the Husband.

4.4 This order also applies if the Wife is appointed trustee for sale pursuant to order 8 below.

Sale Conditions

1. That for the purposes of the sale of the [Suburb Y] property pursuant to Order 2, the following conditions of sale must apply:

5.1 The Husband is to engage such real estate agent ("agent") and solicitor/conveyancer ("conveyancer") as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement within seven (7) days from the date of these Orders:

5.1.1 The Wife shall nominate three (3) agents and three (3) conveyancers; and

5.1.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of the Wife making such nominations, the Husband shall select one agent and one conveyancer; and

5.1.3 In the event the Husband does not confirm his selection in accordance with Order 5.1.2, the Wife shall select one agent and one conveyancer.

5.2 These Orders operate as authority for the Wife to correspond with the agent and conveyancer, and should it be necessary, the Husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents to ensure that the Wife is included in any and all correspondence to and from the agent and conveyancer within twenty-four (24) hours of such correspondence occurring;

5.3 The method of sale shall be as agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement, as recommended by the agent, and the Husband must follow all reasonable recommendations of the agent ("the First Listing");

5.4 The listing price (or reserve price if sold at auction) shall be as agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement, shall be in accordance with the valuation report issued by [HH Group], $800,000 ("the First Listing Price");

5.5 The sale price shall be as agreed between the parties in writing and the Husband shall be restrained from accepting any offers without the express written consent of the Wife unless such offer is within 95% of the listing or reserve price;

5.6 The contract of sale shall provide for completion within forty-two (42) days after the date of the contract unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing;

5.7 The Husband shall ensure that the Wife is notified of the progress of the sale including but not limited to:

5.7.1 Notifying the Wife of any offers made to purchase within four (4) hours of receiving such offer;

5.7.2 Notifying the Wife of all inspections and open homes.

5.8 The Husband shall co-operate in every way in relation to the marketing and sale of the [Suburb Y] property, including, but not limited to:

5.8.1 Allowing inspection at all times reasonably requested by the agent;

5.8.2 Making the key readily available to the agent;

5.8.3 Ensuring that the [Suburb Y] property is clean, neat and in good order at the time of any inspection or is being photographed for marketing purposes.

5.9 In addition to order 5.7, this Order acts as authority for the agent and conveyancer to provide to the Wife copies of all correspondence and documents in relation to the sale of the [Suburb Y] property, including but not limited to:

5.9.1 notice of any change in the auction reserve price;

5.9.2 formal offers made by potential purchasers of the property, including any sale updates;

5.9.3 the Contract for Sale; and 5.9.4 all documents in relation to the disbursement of sale proceeds including the settlement adjustment sheet.

5.10 In the event that the [Suburb Y] property has not been sold within eight (8) weeks from the First Listing, then the Husband shall, within seven (7) days from that period lapsing and at eight (8) week intervals thereafter, do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to list the [Suburb Y] property for sale by auction, with a reserve price of 5% less than the First Listing Price and thereafter 5% less than the previous reserve price, unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing ("Revised Reserve Price"); and

5.11 In the event that bidding at the auction does not reach the Revised Reserve Price, the Husband be at liberty to negotiate through the agent with the highest bidders or any other interested person; and

5.12 The Husband shall be restrained from entering into contracts for sale of the [Suburb Y] property without the express written consent of the Wife unless at a price within 97.5% of the Revised Reserve Price.

6.1 The Husband shall be solely responsible for all outgoings including mortgage repayments, water and council rates, utilities and insurances and shall make all such payments as and when they fall due and the husband hereby indemnifies the Wife in respect of all liabilities incurred prior to the date of settlement;

6.2 The Husband shall be restrained from further encumbering or drawing credit against the [Suburb Y] property, including accessing any overdraft, except with the express written consent of the Wife.

1. The Husband shall provide a copy of these orders to the real estate agent and conveyancer and the Wife shall also be at liberty to do so.

Trustee for Sale

1. That, in the event of non-compliance with order 2 above such that the [Suburb Y] property is not listed for sale within thirty (30) days of expiration of the time period at order 2 above, the Wife shall be appointed as trustee for sale of the [Suburb Y] property and:

8.1 The [Suburb Y] property shall vest in the Wife;

8.2 The Wife shall sell the [Suburb Y] property for the best possible price;

8.3 Upon settlement the Wife shall then give effect to orders 2.1 to 2.6 2.5 above.

1. That in the event either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed, document or instrument necessary to give effect to all or any of these Orders, then the Registrar of the Court shall be appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to execute such deed, document or instrument in the name of the said party and do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the deed, document or instrument upon the Registrar being provided with verification of such refusal or failure by way of affidavit.
2. That the Husband shall be responsible for the Wife's costs of and incidental to this Application on an indemnity basis.

1. The husband seeks:
   1. That the wife's Application in a Proceeding filed 14 November 2025, seeking the urgent sale of the property at [X Street], [Suburb Y], be dismissed.
   2. That the question of whether the husband's property ought to be sold be reserved to the final hearing, after full disclosure, valuations and evidence.
   3. That the wife's request for authorisation to accept any offer within 95% of valuation be dismissed, as premature and contrary to the preservation of the asset pool.
   4. Costs reserved.

1. It is essential to identify the relevant head of power supporting the orders sought because it is the source of power that determines the necessary preconditions and relevant considerations for the making of an order. The identification of the source of power helps frame the order and determines what legal requirements must be met before orders will be made.
2. As emerged during the hearing, the unhelpful framing of the relief sought by the wife belies a difficulty in the way that her case was argued. She seeks orders for the sale of a real property owned by the husband and for the sale proceeds of that property to be applied to enforce payment of outstanding arrears of periodic spouse maintenance and an outstanding costs order. As part of the same order, she seeks to generate funds for a litigation funding order to be made in her favour, and the creation of a fund to be applied as and when required to meet the financial obligations of her corporation, Z Pty Ltd. The multiple sources of power for the purposes of the order as sought for the sale of the husband's Suburb Y property are by way of enforcement, interim or partial property settlement, costs, and injunctions for the preservation of property.
3. Orders are made with the expectation they will be the subject of compliance. Section 105 of the Act empowers the Court to enforce its decrees. To enforce or refuse to enforce an order is discretionary (Ramsey & Ramsey [1982] FamCA 42; (1983) FLC 91-301). Section 109A of the Act specifically empowers the Court to make rules of the Court in respect of enforcement. Chapter 7 of the Rules provides for enforcement. Rule 11.07(e) identifies that an injunctive order may be made in aid of the enforcement of an obligation. Such order can be made to facilitate the disposal of real property interests to produce funds to satisfy declared obligations to pay money by way of enforcement of orders.
4. As to her relief for litigation funding, the wife relied on s 79 and s 80(1)(h) of the Act, or if that was not successful, she then relied on the costs power pursuant to s 114UB of the Act.
5. As to the exercise of an interim or partial property power pursuant to s 79 and s 80(1)(h) of the Act, the Full Court in Strahan & Strahan [2011] FamCAFC 126; (2011) FLC 93-466 ("Strahan") revisited the principles effectible to interim or partial property orders, and set out effectively two steps being:

(a) First, establishing that s 80(1)(h) is enlivened. The test is not confined to "compelling circumstances_"_. Subject to the interests of justice, the usual approach in respect of s 79 is a once and for all order (see Swift & Swift [2020] FamCA 991 at [16]). That said, more is required than the mere fact that upon a final hearing the party seeking the order would receive the property sought (Marchant & Marchant [2012] FamCAFC 181; (2012) FLC 93-520). The "overarching considering" as to the appropriateness of the exercise of an interim property power by the Court must be answered in the affirmative in the interests of justice; and

(b) The second step requires regard to be had to the "usual matters in a s 79 determination" and therefore some assessment of s 79 factors. Given it is an imprecise exercise in the making of these orders, any discretion ought be:

(i) Conservative so as to ensure the final property outcome is not compromised;

(ii) That the remaining property is sufficient to meet the legitimate expectations of both parties at the final hearing; and

(iii) The interim or partial order is capable of being reversed or adjusted if it is subsequently considered necessary to do so.

1. The Full Court in Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692 reinforced the caution identified for trial judges in making orders by way of the exercise of an interim property power that have a real prospect of depleting the property of the parties. That said, as was explained by the Full Court in Strahan, s 80(1)(h) is a wide enabling provision for interim property decisions.
2. Before an order as to costs can be made, the Court must be satisfied that the order is, in the circumstances, just (s 114UB(2) of the Act). Until that point, there is no power to make an order departing from the general rule that each party pays their own costs. Once enlivened, the discretion to make an order as to costs is governed by the considerations contained in s 114UB(3) of the Act. There is no authority that contends that more than one of the factors in s 114UB(3) need be present. Indeed, any one factor may be determinative.
3. In Salvage & Fosse [2020] FamCAFC 144; (2020) FLC 93-966 ("Salvage & Fosse") the Full Court identified that litigation funding orders have a long history and are made to alleviate the obvious unfairness of a party with control of the assets being able to marshal them to pay lawyers, leaving the other party to attempt to pursue the proceedings without being able to resort to property that might subsequently be transferred to them. That said, each application must be looked at according to its own particular facts and circumstances.
4. As to litigation funding, the principles relevant to the making of such orders were identified by the Full Court in Zschokke and Zschokke [1996] FamCA 79; (1996) FLC 92-693. The Full Court in that decision said three matters were relevant regardless of "whether the matter was determined as an interim property settlement order under s 80(1)(h), or as an interim costs (or security for costs) order under s 117(2) [now s 114UB(2)], or indeed even a maintenance order" (at 83,217), being:

(a) A position of relative strength on the part of the respondent;

(b) A capacity on the part of the respondent to meet his or her own legal costs; and

(c) Inability on the part of the applicant to meet his or her legal costs.

1. To obtain injunctive relief for the preservation of property, the wife must establish both that there is an arguable case with sufficient likelihood of success to justify the relief sought, and that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction, in that there is a danger or risk of dissipation of, or dealings with, assets which will frustrate any judgment in her favour (Tsiang & Wu and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128; (2019) FLC 93-911).

1. The husband said in his affidavit that he disputed that "I owe [the] applicant any spousal maintenance arrears as claimed" relying on unparticularised "payments and contributions to maintain the pool" for which he "had not been credited". At the hearing, he conceded that the value of outstanding periodic spouse maintenance arrears payable by him to the wife pursuant to the order made on 28 February 2025 as at 12 December 2025 was $52,500, and that the outstanding costs payable by him to the wife pursuant to the order made on 30 June 2025 remains $7,500. While the wife sought that interest be paid upon the outstanding costs order, she did not adduce evidence as to the value of that interest. Declarations will be made as to the primary monetary obligations payable by the husband at the date of the hearing.
2. Enforcement applications are not an opportunity to revisit the substance of the order sought to be enforced, as was the tenor of the husband's submissions, referring to the fact, nature and values of the property interests of the wife. It is only facts and circumstances arising since the date of the order sought to be enforced that will inform the discretion to enforce. Here, no application has been made by the husband to vary the orders sought to be enforced.
3. The wife cites that the husband's income and capital is sourced from corporations he controls and hence the issue of a third-party debt notice directed to those corporations is likely to be frustrated. She submits that the only readily realisable property interest held in the husband's personal name is the Suburb Y property.
4. The wife put the husband on notice by way of a letter dated 17 October 2025 that if his periodic spouse maintenance obligations remained in arrears, she would apply by way of enforcement to sell the Suburb Y property. The husband has had adequate notice of the possibility of sale of the property by way of enforcement of his obligations.
5. The primary liability sought to be enforced by the wife is for periodic spouse maintenance. She requires these funds to meet her reasonable periodic expenses. I accept that the husband's failure to pay that as ordered occasions prejudice to the wife. The husband's contentions as to prejudice in the event of enforcement are hollow. Notwithstanding his affidavit evidence that his health had "seriously deteriorated" having a "total and permanent" impact on his life, he said during the hearing that he continues to work 18-hour days, and lives at his corporate premises in Suburb JJ. He implicitly floated a semblance during the hearing that he may have capacity to access funds to meet his current obligations pursuant to the orders sought to be enforced if given an opportunity to do so.
6. The husband will be permitted a period of one month to arrange his financial circumstances to meet his existing liabilities and obligations to pay monies to the wife by way of spouse maintenance arrears and the costs order. In the event he fails or neglects to seize that opportunity, the wife will be appointed his trustee to sell the Suburb Y property to enforce payment of the sums due.
7. The history of this litigation to date, including the husband's default in complying with the orders being enforced, militates against a regime for the husband to be engaged in the conduct of the sale of the Suburb Y property. This conclusion is reinforced by way of the overarching purpose set out in r 1.04, being to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. I find that the husband's facilitation in the implementation of an order that he opposes for the disposal of his real property would fuel future interim spot fires in the litigation. There is no evidence that the wife would not comply with her fiduciary duties if appointed as the husband's trustee for the sale.

CONSIDERATION - INJUNCTIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY OR PARTIAL PROPERTY SETTLEMENT

1. The wife asserts that she requires funds from the sale of the Suburb Y property:

(a) To provide to Z Pty Ltd (by way of a loan) to secure and make Property 1 at V Street safe;

(b) To avoid incurring losses by way of fines, penalties and costs directed from the Sydney City Council;

(c) To progress her decision as to whether to remediate and rectify or to demolish the dilapidated building;

(d) To meet secured debt obligations; and

(e) To meet other liabilities relating to the Suburb FF property.

1. The source of power relied upon is in the alternative, by way of an interim or partial property order, or by way of injunction. Either source would seek access to any controlled monies account balance after the sale of the Suburb Y property.
2. Some further context illuminates the reality of the wife's capacities and options. Her desire is to fund Z Pty Ltd to "maximise its value in [Property 1 at V Street]" while implicitly have it retain the Suburb FF property. The underlying tenor of her evidence is that she wishes to ensure Z Pty Ltd can achieve the best result reasonably obtainable if Property 1 at V Street is rationalised and/or sold. The husband made it clear during the hearing that he does not oppose the wife effecting a sale of Property 1 at V Street by way of Z Pty Ltd on that basis, and that through the corporation, she can retain the funds achieved.
3. As raised with the wife during the hearing, she did not adduce evidence as to any impediment to effect an immediate sale of Property 1 at V Street in its current presentation and state of repair. She could then apply the sale proceeds to meet the balance of Z Pty Ltd's current liabilities and obligations. The wife did not engage with this self-evident proposition at the hearing.
4. The husband correctly identified that the wife has significant real property interests that are "virtually debt free". The wife adduced no evidence as to attempting to use those properties to raise funds and to apply those funds as she considers appropriate for Z Pty Ltd. The wife has an unencumbered property at F Street, Suburb G ("the [Suburb G] property") valued at $1,400,000 and a property at H Street, Suburb J valued at $800,000 subject to a mortgage in the range of $100,000.
5. The wife did not adduce evidence as to any incapacity or factor that would prevent raising funds, against either her own real properties, or those of Z Pty Ltd, to fund the costs of local council requirements and the demolition of, or rectification of, Property 1 at V Street site. She could then, at her election, dispose of Property 1 at V Street for the best price achievable in its condition and state of repair, whether it be demolished or rectified. By adopting either course, and after either process was concluded, Z Pty Ltd would have access to funds to meet its other liabilities.
6. The wife has failed to establish that she has an arguable case to justify the injunctive relief sought, or that there is a danger or risk of dissipation of an asset which will frustrate any judgment in her favour. Her application for an order to access the husband's funds, from an interest-bearing deposit account holding the balance of the sale proceeds of the Suburb Y property if sold, on an irregular and ad hoc basis in unspecified sums to meet expenses, is not an order capable of being made to adjust property pursuant to s 79 or s 80 of the Act.
7. The wife's relief as sought for the sale of the Suburb Y property and for the proceeds of sale to be held in an interest-bearing deposit account to meet specified payments by way of interim property settlement, or by way of injunction, will be refused.

1. The wife has failed to establish that it is in the interests of justice to enliven an exercise of power pursuant to s 80(1)(h) of the Act for the purpose of litigation funding. She did not make submissions as to the assessment of relevant s 79 considerations. Her implicit position was that the remaining property is sufficient to meet the legitimate expectation of both parties at the final hearing, without engaging with the fact that both parties seek the Suburb Y property in specie on a final basis. The issue as to claw back or irreversibility of the order for the property to be sold may evaporate if it is disposed of by way of enforcement.
2. The wife has established a position of relative financial strength on the part of the husband but has not established an absence of capacity to meet her own legal costs.
3. As considered, she has the capacity to access and control her own property, including the assets of Z Pty Ltd and of the Trust, and to use that property. In the event she continues to encounter challenges in seizing control of them, she has a raft of remedies available to her at law to overcome the husband's obstructive conduct. The husband is on notice by way of these reasons as to the likelihood of the imposition of remedies sought by the wife as to these subject matters, and that costs may likely follow the event should such further interlocutory applications be necessary in this forum or relief sought in other forums. At present, no identified legal impediment exists to prevent the wife exercising her control of the assets of Z Pty Ltd and the Trust.
4. Additionally, the Suburb G property can secure litigation borrowings. She did not assert that her GG Company litigation loan facility cannot be extended. Her concern about incurring interest on borrowed funds can be avoided by liquidating some of her property to invest in her litigation.
5. The wife has failed to establish justifying circumstances to require the Suburb Y property to be sold to enable the husband to pay to the wife a litigation funding order of $100,000.
6. The wife's relief as sought for the sale of the Suburb Y property and for $100,000 from the proceeds of sale to be paid to her by way of s 79 and s 80 of the Act, or by way of s 114UB of the Act, for interim costs or litigation funding, will be refused.

1. For all of the above reasons, I make the orders as set out herein.
2. No opportunity was afforded for submissions as to costs as sought. Directions will be made to enable such matters to be determined, if pressed.

I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton.