Valerio & Valerio (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 377 (5 June 2025)

(a) D Group Pty Ltd;

(b) D1 Holdings Pty Ltd;

(c) D9 Pty Ltd ATF D9 Trust;

(d) D13 Pty Ltd ATF D13 Unit Trust;

(e) D4 Pty Ltd ATF D4 Unit Trust;

(f) D10 Pty Ltd ATF D10 Trust;

(g) D5 Pty Ltd ATF D5 Unit Trust;

(h) D11 Pty Ltd ATF D11 Trust;

(i) D14 Pty Ltd ATF D14 Unit Trust;

(j) D6 Pty Ltd;

(k) D2 Pty Ltd;

(l) D7 Pty Ltd ATF D7 Unit Trust;

(m) D12 Pty Ltd ATF D12 Trust;

(n) D8 Pty Ltd;

(o) D15 Pty Ltd ATF D15 Unit Trust;

(p) E Pty Ltd ATF F Family Trust

(q) F2 Pty Ltd;

(r) F1 Holdings Pty Ltd;

(s) G Pty Ltd;

(t) H Group Pty Ltd;

(u) H1 Pty Ltd;

(v) J Pty Ltd;

(w) K Pty Ltd;

(x) L Pty Ltd;

(y) D3 Unit Trust;

(z) D7 Unit Trust;

(aa) D5 Unit Trust; and

(bb) D4 Unit Trust.

1. On or before 19 June 2025 the second to 17th Respondents serve on the wife any request for further and better particulars of her points of claim as annexed to her Amended Initiating Application to be filed pursuant to these orders.
2. On or before 27 June 2024 the wife respond to any request for better and further particulars made pursuant the proceeding order.
3. On or before 4 July 2025 each of the second to 17th respondents file and serve a Response to the Further Amended Initiating Application of the wife filed pursuant to these orders.
4. The property proceeding is listed for a case management hearing in person before Boyle J at 9.30 am on 1 July 2025.
5. In the event the matter has not compromised, the parenting proceeding is listed for the making of trial directions in person before Boyle J at 9.30 am 8 October 2025.
6. The parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer have liberty to submit consent orders to the chambers of Boyle J in the event a compromise of the parenting proceeding.
7. The costs of the wife and the second, third, and fifth to 17th respondents of and incidental to the determinations made today are reserved.
8. Save and except as provided for by these orders, the Application in a Proceeding of the wife sealed on 30 January 2025, as amended on 8 May 2025, the Response to an Application in a Proceeding of the husband filed on 30 May 2025 and the R Response to an Application in a Proceeding of the second respondent filed on 24 February 2025 are dismissed.

1. Appointments have been made for the parents and the children to attend upon the Court Child Expert for the purpose of preparing a Family Report on 16 and 18 July 2025. The Court Child Expert report expected to be released in late August 2025.
2. Upon release of the Family Report, the Independent Children's Lawyer will endeavour to schedule an expeditious Legal Aid Comp Mediation process.

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

1. Property and parenting proceedings were commenced on 6 June 2023 by Ms Valerio ("the wife"). Mr Valerio ("the husband") seeks different orders as to those issues.
2. A Family Report is being prepared in the parenting proceeding and is expected to be released in late August 2025 with the Independent Children's Lawyer ("the ICL") thereafter scheduling a COMP mediation. If the parenting of the children, W, who was born in 2011 and is currently 13 years old, X, who was born in 2013 and is currently 11 years old, Y, who was born in 2015 and is currently 10 years old, and Z, who was born in 2018 and is currently seven years old, remains in issue after that mediation event, it is listed for trial over five days commencing on 1 December 2025 before Boyle J. The parenting matter will be listed before Boyle J for directions in person as to the filing of material for a parenting trial on 8 October 2025 at 9.30 am. In the event the parties achieve a compromise of the parenting issue they are at liberty to submit consent orders to Boyle J in chambers for consideration.
3. These reasons determine an Application in a Proceeding of the wife sealed on 30 January 2025, as amended on 8 May 2025, seeking leave to amend her Initiating Application pursuant to r 2.50 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") and consequentially for the joinder of 16 additional respondents, being the husband's mother, Ms B Valerio, and corporate and trust entities in which the wife contends the husband has an interest, and for injunctive relief for the preservation of property. Those interlocutory disputes were adjourned part heard from 28 March 2025 until today. These reasons assume familiarity with the reasons delivered earlier today dismissing an application of the proposed second, third, and fifth to 17th respondents, to adjourn the hearing of the Application in a Proceeding as amended.
4. The husband opposes the joinder of the proposed additional respondents, save for the proposed additional fourth respondent, E Pty Ltd. That corporation, conceded to be the property of the husband, was joined as the fourth respondent to the proceeding with the consent of the husband and the wife during the hearing earlier today. The husband's position is the injunctive relief as sought by the wife ought to be the subject of a notice provision, such that he would give 28 days' notice to the wife in the event he intended to engage in any of the conduct sought to be the subject of restraint.
5. The balance of the proposed additional respondents oppose their joinder. In the event of an order being made for the joinder of the second respondent, she agrees to the continuation of her undertaking filed on 4 April 2024 pending further order, being a form of restraint as to her dealing with interests the subject of dispute in the substantive proceedings pursuant to s 79 of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").

1. The husband was born in 1978 and is currently 47 years old. The wife was born in 1990 and is currently 35 years old. They commenced cohabitation in or around mid-2008, married in early 2017, and separated on 6 June 2022. The four children of the marriage live with the husband.
2. The wife contends a significant value of the property of the parties comprises interests held by the husband in 11 trust entities within the D Group. Those interests are held by way of 11 trustee corporations and the trusts, being the proposed seventh to 17th respondents. Those trusts in turn own real property, trading enterprises, and fit outs by way of centres. Other proposed respondents are management corporations that conduct the centres. It is the wife's case that some of those interests are held by the husband with his mother, and others are held by the husband. In any event, the wife contends each interest is of the nature of property of the husband amenable to adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Act. The husband and the husband's mother puts into issue the wife's contentions as to the husband's interests in the D Group as described.
3. By way of the wife's proposed amended relief as sought on a substantive basis, she seeks a lump sum payment such that she receive 60 per cent of the property of the parties. Implicit in the value of that adjusting payment is the value of the husband's interests as she asserts in the D Group.
4. The wife's financial statement filed on 24 February 2025, identifies that she has very modest property and lives in public housing. The husband's financial statement filed on 30 May 2025, asserts that he too has only modest property. On any view, the contested interest of the husband in the D Group forms a significant value of the potential property of the parties available for adjustment.
5. No evidence been adduced as to value of the relevant trusts and corporations in the D Group and consequently the husband's interest therein.
6. It is the wife's case that, during the currency of these proceedings, the husband has taken steps, unilaterally and without notice to her, to transfer the management, control, and ownership of corporations and trust interests to his mother, Ms B Valerio, the proposed second respondent. This conduct includes his resignation as a director of corporations, including trustee corporations, and the transfer shareholdings in corporations and trustees to his mother. There seems to be no dispute that these changes occurred absent notice to the wife.
7. The husband has had the benefit of solicitors acting for him throughout much of the proceedings and, by way of financial statements and other documents he has filed, is aware as to his obligations of disclosure of relevant documents and information as to his financial circumstances. The wife consequently makes serious contentions that the husband has extensively failed to comply with his obligations of disclosure pursuant to ch 6 of the Rules. On the material before me to date, there is some merit to those contentions.
8. The affidavit of the proposed second respondent contends the business entities are a product of work undertaken by her and the husband's late father, and that the husband's engagement in the business enterprises has been by way of management purposes only. It is her case that she made the decision to remove the husband as a director of all corporations which operated centres as a consequence of criminal charges laid against the husband. It is the husband's case the criminal charges were made on the complaint of the wife and, implicitly, were for some forensic or ulterior purpose.
9. The proposed second respondent gives evidence in her affidavit as to the purchase of the husband's shares in some of the management corporations that conduct the centres pursuant to a share sale agreement. She gives evidence as to obtaining an indicative valuation of the management companies from a firm of accountants, such valuation being verified by a "third-party, arms-length Accountant and valuation firm known as [M Advisors]". She further gives evidence as to the entry between the trading corporations and the husband as to a consultancy agreement for period of six months ending 30 March 2025 consequential to the disposal of the husband's shareholdings in the management corporations.
10. Neither the husband nor the second respondent made submissions to reconcile any possible conflict in the case asserted as to the D Group interest of the husband being, implicitly, beneficially held for his mother and the acquisition for consideration of some of those interests.
11. It is unsurprising that the value of the entities making up the D Group is currently unknown. On one view, having regard to his management of the entities, the husband would have some knowledge as to the value of those interests. The proposed second respondent, as the contended legal and beneficial owner of the trusts and corporations making up that Group, would also have some knowledge as to the broad value of them. Neither the husband nor the proposed second respondent adduced any evidence as to that subject matter or evidence that would ground some understanding to reach a conclusion as to that subject matter.
12. I accept the wife's contention that the process of valuing that Group is confronted with significant challenges arising from the husband's disclosure failures and the unilateral disposal of his shareholdings without notice.

1. Rule 2.50 of the Rules mandates that the wife must obtain leave to amend for substantive application including to join additional parties.
2. Rule 3.01 provides a double threshold for an additional entity or person to be included as a necessary party to the proceedings, being:

(a) That their rights may be directly affected by an issue in the proceedings; and importantly also

(b) Their participation as a party is necessary for the court to determine all issues in dispute in the proceeding.

1. If the evidence grounds such satisfaction, the rule obliges joinder.
2. By way of the proposed Amended Initiating Application annexed to the Amended Application in a Proceeding of the wife filed on 8 May 2025, she seeks broadly for the husband to make a lump sum payment to her in such amount as is necessary for she to receive 60 per cent of what she contends is the property of the parties. She additionally seeks relief pursuant to s 106B of the Act to set aside the transfer of the husband's shareholding interests in the trustee companies to his mother during the currency of the proceedings, and/or in the alternative, relief pursuant to s 90AE(2) of the Act relating to the proposed additional respondents. The wife contends that the proposed additional respondents are necessary parties to the proceedings, in that the amended relief she seeks directly affects their interests. That relief directly engages with the mandates of r 3.01.
3. The wife further contends that the transactions entered into by the husband and his mother during these property proceedings as recorded earlier in these reasons were made with the intention of, or in any event would defeat, an anticipated order as sought by her. It is uncontroversial the proposed third, fifth, and sixth respondents, being the subject of the share sales agreement after the proceedings commenced, are transactions, that has as its integers the "seller" being the husband and the "purchaser" being the husband's mother. A disposal as required by s 106B occurred. The value of the disposal, even if accepted at the amount the proposed second respondent asserts, could defeat the wife's proposed relief having regard to the husband's current contended property interests. The participation of the proposed additional respondents it is submitted is therefore also necessary for the court to determine all issues in dispute between the husband and the wife in the proceedings, including valuation issues.
4. The proposed additional respondents submit the relief sought by the wife as to their joinder ought to be considered to be likely to be summarily dismissed. They cite the reasoning of McClelland J (as he then was) in the first instance judgment in Reimann & Reimann (No 3) [2017] FamCA 911. Broadly it is their case that the amended relief sought to be prosecuted by the wife has no reasonable prospect of success, and hence any order for joinder would be futile.
5. As to summary dismissal or the principle constructed from r 10.09(1)(d) in considering whether the proposed Further Amended Initiating Application of the wife has no reasonable likelihood of success as against the proposed additional respondents, longstanding authority identifies that the wife's evidence is to be taken at its highest (Ritter & Ritter [2020] FamCAFC 86; (2020) FLC 93-957 at [66]). The court is bound to assume the acceptance of that evidence unless it is inherently improbable or contrary to compelling inferences. Sufficient facts must be asserted by pleading to demonstrate that, if proved, the law arguably provides on a principled basis for the relief sought.
6. In so far as any conflict exists between the satisfaction of double threshold and the mandate thereafter imposed as to joinder by r 3.01 and the futility of joinder if the proposed amended relief sought against the additional respondents had no reasonable likelihood of success, I accept the submission of the proposed additional respondents that as a matter of logic the import of the overarching purpose of the Rules (r 1.04) would conclude that the proposed joinder be refused.
7. I do not accept the contention of the proposed additional respondents that the wife, at this preliminary time in the proceeding, has no reasonable likelihood of success in agitating the relief as sought in her proposed Further Amended Initiating Application. A plain reading of her evidence, and the pleadings scaffolding that evidence, establish that the wife has an arguable case as to the central contention of the beneficial ownership of the entities within the D Group resting with the husband, either by way of control, or a capacity to legally receive the benefits of relevant trusts and corporations prior to the transfer of shareholdings, or a combination of both.
8. This determination, at this preliminary stage, is reinforced by the husband's disclosure failures as identified herein and needs to be considered in the shadow of the challenges encountered by the wife in specifying the relief she seeks against each corporation and/or trust and the husband, which in turn is a product of value of each of the proposed additional respondents. It may be, as identified by the wife, subject to evidentiary foundation, that it is necessary to liquidate some corporations and/or trusts in order to achieve her relief sought. There appears to be some merit to the wife's submissions that some of the transactions entered by the husband and his mother as to the transfer of management corporation shareholdings are not at arm's length.
9. The rights of the proposed additional respondents are directly affected by the fact and terms of the proposed relief sought on amendment by the wife. In the circumstances, it is necessary for each of the additional respondents to participate in the proceedings as parties, such participation being required to determine all issues in dispute in the proceedings.
10. Orders will be made for wife to have leave to file her Further Amended Initiating Application and for the joinder of the proposed second, third, and fifth to 17th respondents as parties to the proceedings, for the additional respondents to seek further and better particulars as they are advised of the wife's Points of Claim as annexed to her proposed Further Amended Initiating Application and for the wife to provide those further particulars as sought. The proposed additional respondents will be directed to file a Response to the Further Amended Initiating Application as filed. The proposed additional respondents thereafter can make such application for summary judgment as they are advised.

1. The wife seeks an injunctive order restraining the husband, both personally and in his capacity as a director of E Pty Ltd, F1 Holdings Pty Ltd, and of any other entity, from disposing or dealing with his interests whether by way of shares, units, or otherwise, in 28 specified trusts and corporations pending final determination of these property proceedings.
2. As I understand it, if necessary, the wife, through her senior counsel, has indicated that she would provide an undertaking as to damages in the usual form as a condition of any injunctive relief.
3. The husband says he will agree to injunctive sought but that ought be characterised as an injunctive order "if it is necessary for me to do anything with the shares in my name".
4. The wife must establish both an arguable case with sufficient likelihood of success to justify the preservation of the status quo, and that the balance of convenience favours the granting 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; see Tsiang & Wu and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128; (2019) FLC 93-911:
   1. The grant of an injunction is discretionary and the basis on which such an order is made is well established. A purpose, as in this case, is to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the controversy. An applicant must demonstrate first that there is a serious issue to be tried. While that statement has been the subject of various iterations, in essence it requires the demonstration of an arguable case or as was said in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65], the applicant must "show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo".
   2. Next the applicant must demonstrate that the balance of convenience favours making the order sought. As part of this, the applicant must show that there is a "danger" or risk of dissipation of or dealings with assets which will frustrate any judgment in favour of the applicant.

1. It is the wife's case that integral to her substantive s 79 relief is the preservation of the corporate and trust interests of the husband. The relevant subject matter of the litigation is the wife's claim orders for property adjustment under Pt VIII of the Act, specifically pursuant to s 79, and the pool of property that she contends is the subject of that claim, of which the interests of the husband as contended by her in D Group forms a fundamental part. The dispute between the husband and the wife concerns the specie and value of the husband's property including the form, if any, that adjustment should take.
2. For the reasons identified earlier, the wife has established to the requisite degree that there is a serious issue to be tried in the proceedings. I accept that, for the purposes of the injunctive relief sought, she has established a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the preservation, at least of the status quo. Implicitly, by way of the notice provisions to which the husband would agree, the balance of convenience falls to the wife in making the orders as sought. The husband has the capacity, should he consider it appropriate, upon any injunctive orders being sought, to apply to vary them.
3. The reasons record the wife has established to the requisite degree, at this time in the proceedings, a danger or risk of dissipation of, or dealing with, assets that will frustrate any judgment she may receive in her favour, such foundations specifically falling from the husband's disclosure failures and from his unilateral conduct in entering the share transfer transactions without notice to the wife during the course of the litigation. It is self-evident that the husband's conduct during the course of the litigation has impacted upon his capacity to influence or direct distribution of income or capital from trusts. The wife was only advised about these changes to the husband's financial circumstances after they had occurred.
4. For all of the reasons set out, the injunctive orders will be made in the terms as sought by the wife subject to she filing an undertaking as to damages in the usual form.
5. In circumstances where the second respondent has agreed, her undertaking in the terms as filed on 4 April 2025 will continue pending further order.
6. For all of the reasons as set out, I make the orders as set out herein.

I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton.