Dias & Dias (No 2)

Case [2023] FedCFamC1F 908

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Dias & Dias (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 908

File number(s): CAC 261 of 2023
Judgment of: GILL J
Date of judgment: 25 October 2023
Catchwords:  FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where an adult child of the parties is joined as a second respondent – Where a number of investment properties are in the joint name of the husband, wife and second respondent – Where the three parties have pooled their resources – Where it appears that the second respondent’s claim is in the form of a remedial constructive trust – Where this is based on asserted contributions to household and management tasks – Where the respondents assert an 80-20 split of interests between them in favour of the respondent for five of the investment properties with the respondent to receive $1 for each – Where the respondents’ claim as to the interests of the parties is outrageous – No equitable interest beyond legal interest established – Where the respondents have withdrawn large amounts of money from a joint account without any credible explanation – Significant non-disclosure by the respondents – Adjustment of property interests between the husband and wife to be just and equitable – Adjustment not warranted on contributions – Adjustment warranted pursuant to s 75(2).
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – The rule in Browne v Dunn – Where the applicant is released from the obligation to put contentious matters to the respondent as a result of persistent non-responsive answers – Cost Orders – Conduct of the proceedings - Where the first and second respondent repeatedly failed to make financial disclosures – Where the first and second respondents unsuccessfully pursued unwarranted ancillary relief - Costs awarded on party/party and indemnity basis.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)– ss 75(2), 79(4) & 117(2A)(a)

Evidence Act 1995 (ACT) - s 50

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
Cases cited:

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR137 at 149

Bevan v Bevan (2013) 49 FamLR 387

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67

Colgate Palmolive Co and Another v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248

Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154

I & I (1995) FLC 92-625 at 82,277

In the Marriage of Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705 at 83,437

Kohan & Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340

Munday v Bowman (1997) 22 FamLR 321

Quickley & Pelissier [2016] FamCAFC 124

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 220
Date of hearing: 9-13 October 2023
Place: Canberra
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Haughton
Solicitor for the Applicant: Elringtons Lawyers
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Litigant in Person
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Litigant in Person
Table of Corrections
26 October 2023 In paragraphs 3 and 29 the reference to[BB Street] have been corrected.

ORDERS

CAC 261 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MR DIAS

Applicant
AND:

MS DIAS

First Respondent

MR B DIAS

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

GILL J

DATE…

Continue reading Dias & Dias (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dias & Dias (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 908
Case
[2023] FedCFamC1F 908
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Gill J heard a case between Mr Dias and Ms Dias, with Mr B Dias as a second respondent, regarding the division of property following the separation of Mr and Ms Dias. The primary dispute involved the equitable distribution of several investment properties and other assets held jointly or separately by the parties. The case included complex issues of financial management, property interests, and the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings.

The court had to determine the equitable interests of the parties in the jointly and severally owned properties, assess the contributions of each party to the household and property management, and address the significant non-disclosure and financial mismanagement by Ms Dias and Mr B Dias. The court also had to decide on the appropriate costs and ancillary relief in light of the conduct of the proceedings.

Gill J found that there was no evidence to support an equitable interest in the properties beyond the legal interest held by the parties. The court noted that while each party contributed differently to the household and property management, there was no inequality of contributions to warrant a different division of property. The court further found that Ms Dias and Mr B Dias had engaged in significant non-disclosure, including unexplained large withdrawals from joint accounts and a lack of transparency regarding their financial activities. This conduct justified an adjustment of property interests between Mr and Ms Dias to achieve a just and equitable outcome.

The court dismissed numerous claims made by the respondents, including requests for declarations of cognitive impairment, revocation of powers of attorney, and compensation claims. It also ordered the sale of certain properties, with proceeds distributed among the parties according to specified directions. Additionally, the court appointed a trustee to oversee the sale and manage the proceeds. The wife and second respondent were ordered to pay Mr Dias's costs on a party-party basis until a certain date and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The court also referred the contravention applications to the National Assessment Team for further hearing.

The court's decision emphasised the importance of transparency and cooperation in family law proceedings and highlighted the consequences of non-disclosure and obstructive behaviour in determining property division and costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

CAC 261 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR DIAS

Applicant

AND:

MS DIAS

First Respondent

MR B DIAS

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

GILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 OCTOBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. All previous orders are discharged.

2. The following applications identified in the minutes of orders sought by the wife are dismissed:

(a) Re 1 - that the court declare that Mr Dias has a cognitive impairment from 29 April 2020.

(b) Re 2 – that any ‘Power of Attorney’, enduring or otherwise, of Mr Dias dated on or after 29 April 2020 be revoked effective at the time they were signed.

(c) Re 3 – that the ‘Enduring Power of Attorney’ of Mr Dias dated 8 September 2012 be valid and effective.

(d) Re 4 - that Land Titles instrument number … lodged at … on 12 January 2023 be revoked at the time they were lodged.

(e) Re 5 - that Land Titles instrument number … lodged at … on 12 January 2023 be revoked at the time they were lodged.

(f) Re 19 - that any costs agreements or provision of any costs agreement entered into between Mr Dias and S Lawyers of Suburb T be set aside under section 288 of the Legal Profession Act.

(g) Re 20 - that any costs agreements or provision of any costs agreement entered into between Mr Dias and U Lawyers of City E be set aside under section 288 of the Legal Profession Act.

(h) Re 21 - that any costs agreements or provision of any costs agreement entered into between Mr Dias and Elringtons Lawyers of Suburb V be set aside under section 288 of the Legal Profession Act.

(i) Re 22 - that any costs agreements or provision of any costs agreement entered into between Mr Dias and any legal professional be set aside under section 288 of the Legal Profession Act.

(j) Re 23 - that Order 9 of the Orders dated 17 March 2023 which states “The Applicant Husband’s costs be reserved.” be discharged.

(k) Re 24 - that Cost Notices of the applicant (if any) be dismissed.

(l) Re 25 - that the applicant, Mr Dias be liable for all costs, including but not limited to taxation of costs, indemnity costs, court proceeding costs and legal representation.

(m) Re 29 - within 2 banking days of the date of these Orders, the applicant, Mr Dias do all things necessary to transfer the reasonable amount of interest accrued (calculated at the Government Land Tax interest rate of 11.06% p.a. compounded monthly) of $12,105.38 as at 25 September 2023 on the funds transferred into Elringtons Lawyers’ Trust Account pursuant to Orders 2 and 7 of the Orders dated 17 March 2023 into the joint account of the First Respondent, Ms Dias and Second Respondent, Mr B Dias, BSB number …, Account number …00, pursuant to sections 80 and 106B of the Family Law Act 1975.

(n) Re 35 - that Mr Dias pay the reasonable cost of compensation (for his acts which lack grounds, harass and malice, disregard court orders and processes and abuse of the discovery process) to Ms Dias.

(o) Re 36 - that Mr Dias be declared a vexatious litigant under section 67A of the Supreme Court Act 1933.

(p) Re 40 - that the First Respondent, Ms Dias be granted permission to provide the Law Society material in relation to the subpoena filed on 19 June 2023, including but not limited to the document returned by National Australia Bank Ltd (the “NAB”).

(q) Re 41 - that the First Respondent, Ms Dias be granted permission to provide the Law Society material in relation to the subpoena filed on 18 July 2023, including but not limited to the document returned by National Australia Bank Ltd (the “NAB”).

(r) Re 42 - that compensation for damages be awarded to the First Respondent, Ms Dias.

3. The following applications identified in the minutes of orders sought by the second respondent are dismissed:

(a) Re 1 - that the court declare that Mr Dias has a cognitive impairment from 29 April 2020 is withdrawn and dismissed.

(b) Re 2 – that any ‘Power of Attorney’, enduring or otherwise, of Mr Dias dated on or after 29 April 2020 be revoked effective at the time they were signed.

(c) Re 3 - that the ‘Enduring Power of Attorney’ of Mr Dias dated 8 September 2012 be valid and effective.

(d) Re 4 - that Land Titles instrument number … lodged at 10:50:13 on 12 January 2023 be revoked at the time they were lodged.

(e) Re 19 - that any costs agreements or provision of any costs agreement entered into between Mr Dias and S Lawyers of Suburb T be set aside under section 288 of the Legal Profession Act.

(f) Re 20 - that any costs agreements or provision of any costs agreement entered into between Mr Dias and U Lawyers of City E be set aside under section 288 of the Legal Profession Act.

(g) Re 21 - that any costs agreements or provision of any costs agreement entered into between Mr Dias and Elringtons Lawyers of Suburb V be set aside under section 288 of the Legal Profession Act.

(h) Re 22 - that any costs agreements or provision of any costs agreement entered into between Mr Dias and any legal professional be set aside under section 288 of the Legal Profession Act.

(i) Re 23 - that Order 9 of the Orders dated 17 March 2023 which states “The Applicant Husband’s costs be reserved.” be discharged.

(j) Re 24 - that Cost Notices of the Applicant (if any) be dismissed.

(k) Re 25 - that all costs in contravention proceeding be against Mr Dias.

(l) Re 26 - that the Applicant, Mr Dias be liable for all costs, including but not limited to taxation of costs, indemnity costs, court proceeding costs and legal representation.

(m) Re 30 - within 2 banking days of the date of these Orders, the Applicant, Mr Dias do all things necessary to transfer the reasonable amount of interest accrued (Land Tax Assessment from the Government with interest rate of 11.06% p.a. compounded monthly) of $12,105.38 as at 25 September 2023 on the funds transferred into Elringtons Lawyers’ Trust Account pursuant to Orders 2 and 7 of the Orders dated 17 March 2023 into the joint account of the First Respondent, Ms Dias and Second Respondent, Mr B Dias (BSB number …, Account number …00) pursuant to sections 80 and 106B of the Family Law Act 1975.

(n) Re 36 - that due to Mr Dias’s lack of grounds, harassment and malice, disregard for court orders and processes and abuse of the discovery process he pay the reasonable cost of compensation to Mr B Dias.

(o) Re 37 - that Mr Dias be declared a vexatious litigant under section 67A of the Supreme Court Act 1933.

(p) Re 41 - that the Second Respondent, Mr B Dias be granted permission to provide the Law Society material in relation to the subpoena filed on 19 June 2023, including but not limited to the document returned by National Australia Bank Ltd (the “NAB”).

(q) Re 42 - that the Second Respondent, Mr B Dias be granted permission to provide the Law Society material in relation to the subpoena filed on 18 July 2023, including but not limited to the document returned by National Australia Bank Ltd (the “NAB”).

(r) Re 43 - that compensation for damages be awarded to the Second Respondent, Mr B Dias.

ORDERS FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY

4. Mr C, chartered accountant, registered trustee in bankruptcy, registered liquidator and partner principal of the firm D Accountants in City E is appointed as trustee, with power of sale to the extent that sale has not already been effected and completed, of the real property situated at and known as:

(a) F Street, Suburb G;

(b) H Street, Suburb J.

(c) K Street, Suburb G; and

(d) L Street, Suburb G (“the sales”).

5. The conveyancing solicitor is Mr M of N Lawyers of Suburb O (“the conveyancing solicitor”).

6. The trustee is at liberty to continue the appointment of Ms P of Q Company in Suburb R (“the listing agent”).

7. The trustee shall keep the parties updated and informed in writing in relation to the sales.

8. The first and second respondents be and are hereby restrained from communicating with the trustee and/or the listing agent other than when the trustee is complying with his obligations pursuant to the above order.

9. The husband through his legal representatives is at liberty to communicate with the trustee and the listing agent and it is noted that nothing in these orders prevents the husband through his legal representatives from requesting and being provided copies of all documents referring to or relating to the sales from the listing agent and/or the conveyancing solicitor.

10. All parties be and are hereby restrained by injunction from any act or thing which reduces or may reduce the value of the properties referred to in order 4 these orders.

11. Upon settlement of the sales the sale proceeds shall be paid in the following manner and priority:

(a) payment of the agent’s commission and advertising or other expenses (if any) including but not limited to payment of any council and water rates and maintenance levies outstanding in respect of the properties and other outgoings payable on sale;

(b) payment of the legal costs and outlays relating to the sale;

(c) payment of any expenses to be reimbursed to the auctioneer (if any);

(d) payment of the trustee’s reasonable remuneration and disbursements (if any); and

(e) the balance to be held in the trust account of the conveyancing solicitor pending payment in accordance with the orders below.

The proceeds of sale

12. Following the payment of the items referred to at paragraphs 11, the proceeds of the trust account of N Lawyers of Suburb O in relation to the sales of the properties of the parties shall be paid in the following manner:

(a) In relation to the sale proceeds of X Street, Suburb G, (being in the sum of $668,108):

(i) First to the husband one third of those proceeds, plus the amount of $65,995 to the husband in accordance with written direction from his solicitors;

(ii) Then of the remaining balance one half to the second respondent;

(iii) Then the remaining balance to the wife in accordance with her written direction but subject to order 13 below.

(b) In relation to the sale proceeds of F Street, Suburb G one third to the husband in accordance with written direction from his solicitors; one third to the wife in accordance with her written direction but subject to order 13 below; one third to the second respondent in accordance with his written direction.

(c) In relation to the sale proceeds of H Street, Suburb J one third to the husband in accordance with written direction from his solicitors; one third to the wife in accordance with her written direction but subject to order 13 below; one third to the second respondent in accordance with his written direction.

(d) In relation to the sale proceeds of K Street, Suburb G one third to the husband in accordance with written direction from his solicitors; one third to the wife in accordance with her written direction but subject to order 13 below; one third to the second respondent in accordance with his written direction.

(e) In relation to the sale proceeds of L Street, Suburb G one third to the husband in accordance with written direction from his solicitors; one third to the wife in accordance with her written direction but subject to order 13 below; one third to the second respondent in accordance with his written direction.

(f) In relation to the sale proceeds of Y Street, Suburb Z (in the sum of $446,486.68) one quarter to the husband in accordance with written direction from his solicitors; one quarter to the wife in accordance with her written direction but subject to order 13 below; one half to the second respondent in accordance with his written direction.

13. Prior to the wife receiving any proceeds from the sales of the properties in orders 12(a)‑(f) a payment from the wife’s share in the sum of $280,300 shall be paid to the husband in accordance with written direction from his solicitors.

14. The husband is immediately entitled to the monies referred to in the above order from monies held in trust for the wife by the conveyancing solicitor regardless of whether the wife has given her authorisation.

15. Upon the payment to the husband referred to in order 13 being made the wife shall thereafter be entitled to receive the proceeds of her share of the sales of the properties set out at order 12.

16. Forthwith upon the payment to the husband in accordance with order 13, the husband shall transfer to the wife his interest in BB Street, Suburb CC, Region W.

17. The husband is entitled to the monies held in trust by his solicitors.

The Country DD account

18. The parties shall forthwith do all things necessary to authorise the release to the wife the funds held in their joint names in an account at the FF Bank, Country DD.

19. In aid of the above order the wife and second respondent shall cause to be sent to the husband all documents necessary for him to execute to give effect to the above order.

The City EE property

20. The parties shall forthwith do all things necessary to transfer to the wife the husband’s interest in the property described in title deed number …, as GG Street …, (“the City EE property”) currently owned one third each by the parties.

21. In aid of the above order the wife and second respondent shall cause to be sent to the husband all documents necessary for him to execute to give effect to the above order.

22. Nothing in orders 18-21 shall be taken to require the husband to travel to Country DD to give effect to the orders.

The collection

23. The husband is entitled to and is the owner of the collection in his possession.

COSTS

24. The wife and second respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the husband’s costs of these proceedings as agreed or as assessed:

(a) On a party – party basis from the commencement of the proceedings until 12 September 2023;

(b) On an indemnity basis thereafter.

MISCELLANEOUS

25. I direct that a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Supreme Court for the purpose of the currently stayed proceedings between the parties that are before that Court.

CONTRAVENTIONS

26. The Contravention Applications filed on 8 August 2023, 28 August 2023 and 1 September 2023 are referred to the National Assessment Team for listing.

27. The listing of the contraventions are to be for a full day of hearing before a different judicial officer.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. These Orders have been amended pursuant to rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) on 26 October 2023.

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).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Further, in making such an enquiry the plurality (at [150]) advised that:The court should, where possible, strive to give effect to the notion of practical equality, rather than pursue complicated factual inquiries which will result in relatively insignificant differences in contributions and consequential beneficial interest.The evidence of the wife and second respondent Before dealing with the evidence of the wife and the second respondent, it is appropriate to note the caution with which their evidence should be treated. Although in many cases global credit findings should be avoided, the wife’s evidence in this case was of a character that meant it cannot be relied upon. The manner and content of the wife’s oral evidence gave strong reason to be cautious in relation to her assertions, other than when adequately supported by reliable evidence. In large part the wife’s evidence was non-responsive to questioning, evasive and deflecting. Having been warned at the commencement of her evidence that repeated failures to answer questions could leave an impression of the avoiding of questions, and a corresponding doubt as to credibility, the most striking feature of her evidence was in its consistency in avoiding the question that she had been asked. The avoiding of questions frequently descended into non-responsive statements designed to bolster her case, in particular in gratuitous criticism of the husband. The wife was repeatedly cautioned in relation to her non-responsive answers. In particular, she was cautioned that her consistent failure to respond may result in the husband being excused from the obligation to put contentious matters to her as a matter of fairness.[3] The wife’s non‑responsive answering rendered compliance with the rule in Browne v Dunn abusive of process to the husband. Despite these warnings the wife continued in her discursive non-responsive answering, which ultimately resulted in the husband being released from that obligation.[3] cf the rule in Browne v Dunn To this may be added an apparently selective approach to recollection, wherein the wife was able to give minute detail of matters that she considered benefitted her case but claimed ignorance or innocence of matters that might undermine her case. An evidently highly intelligent woman, her claims of ignorance or naivety in large part lacked any credibility. Further, the wife’s Financial Statements appeared to be unrealistically and severely inflated, undoubtedly to seek to explain the movement of cash. In summary, great caution should be exercised before accepting the wife’s evidence on a contentious matter without adequate support from other evidence. There was also good reason for caution in relation to the evidence of the second respondent. One reason was the significant lack of disclosure, including as to the accounts into which the proceeds of the rental properties flowed. Further, the second respondent demonstrated an unwillingness to adequately explain the cash withdrawals from those accounts, including the uses to which the cash was put. When explanation was proffered, it was woefully inadequate, leading to a strong impression that the second respondent was being evasive and dishonest in his evidence.

Decision

Reasons for decision

This post separation history is supportive of the contention made by the husband that the second respondent and wife have retained undisclosed cash reserves, retained from the various cash withdrawals and the withdrawals in aid of their claimed technology investment with MM Company.Conclusion as to legal interests Contrary to the position taken by the wife and second respondent, the evidence does not display an inequality of contributions. Rather, the picture that emerges is of long-standing cooperation between the three parties, both in relation to the acquisition and operation of the rental properties, and in mutual support as the second respondent and his family shared the family home with the husband and wife. It may be accepted that each contributed in different ways, and that their contributions ebbed and flowed in the various domains in which they were made. However, the evidence does not support, for the purpose of determining the parties’ equitable interests, anything other than a general equality. The wife’s and second respondent’s position as to his contribution-based interest is misplaced. The second respondent’s interest are no different to what was reflected in the title to the properties. In terms of the balance of the property held overseas, little information was available in respect of the Country DD real property, or the bank account. All parties expressed uncertainty as to the Country DD bank account. The husband led evidence to show that he has taken steps to establish the status of the bank account, but that those steps have been unsuccessful. The wife and second respondent do not appear to have taken any steps in relation to the bank account, taking the position that if there is an amount that it should stand to the credit of the husband. Absent reason to consider that the account balance has changed, it should be considered that about $40,000 is held in that account. This is particularly so given that the second respondent ultimately agreed that there was $40,000 in the account but asserted, without indicating why, that he could not access the account. Despite the protestations by the wife and second respondent as to an unawareness of the status of the Country DD property, this was not on the basis of an assertion that neither was on the title, or that something had happened to the property. The protestations of a lack of awareness appeared to be on the basis that anything could have happened and so who would know if there is such a property. Again, the husband was frustrated in his steps to procure evidence about the property. What was established by the documentation produced from Country DD is that there is a property purchased in City EE the names of all three parties. What was uncontroversial is that the second respondent lived in it for a period. Both the second respondent and wife asserted that if the property exists, the husband should receive it in any property distribution. The wife and the second respondent appeared to agree with the husband’s contention that the property was worth $150,000, on the basis that the husband should receive it. Given the limited success on the part of the husband in obtaining evidence in relation to the City EE property and Country DD bank account, there remains uncertainty as to the steps that may need to be taken to effect any transfer of either to the husband.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

It did not appear to be controversial that the second respondent lived in the City EE apartment for an extended period.Post separation issues In September 2021, the husband opened a bank account in his sole name with the ANZ Bank. Amounts totalling $12,750 were deposited into this account between then and November 2022. This was done without notice to the wife or second respondent, and the husband provided the bank with a different address to the home address. Despite the use of an alternate address the wife was quickly aware of the existence of the account as, although the husband had, it appears, endeavoured to give his sister’s address, he gave an address of someone else associated with the parties who, on receipt of correspondence from the bank to the husband, told the wife that he had received such. When he opened this account there remained approximately a quarter of a million dollars in the three-way account. This was a major source of complaint on the part of the wife. Until then all funds appeared to pass through the one account shared by the three parties. Part of this passage of monies included, as described above, the use of credit cards by the parties, in particular the husband and second respondent, for various expenses, with the credit cards being paid out from this account each month. It was also an account from which funds had been used by the parties for the purchase of real estate. For example, in November 2019[5] the parties had accumulated over $500,000 in the account from which in excess of $430,000 was withdrawn to fund the purchase of the F Street property.[5] Ex H12 On 29 August 2022, the wife and second respondent opened a joint bank account. It should be observed that the wife and second respondent did not disclose the statements from this account despite repeated requests for disclosure. Further, they objected to the husband inspecting these accounts when produced on subpoena from the NAB, thereby delaying further his access to such. Rent from at least some of the investment properties began being deposited into the joint account shared by the wife and second respondent from when it was opened. No withdrawals were made from this account until after 7 November 2022, when $210,000 was transferred into this account from the account the respondents shared with the husband and the husband then caused the three-way account to be frozen. Until this time, it appears that payments for expenses were still being drawn from the three‑way account, despite significant rent proceeds being deposited into the two-way account, such that prior to the deposit of the $210,000 the new account had accumulated almost $47,000. From this point cash withdrawals from the two-way account commenced, asserted to pay various expenses including those related to the rental properties, the first such occurring on 2 December 2022. The wife was unable to describe what the various payments were in relation to, which assumed some significance given the size of the payments (including one of $45,030 on 7 February 2023, that was later ascribed to technology investment).