Fazil & Fazil

[2021] FamCA 16

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fazil & Fazil [2021] FamCA 16

File number(s):	PAC 917 of 2019
Judgment of:	FOSTER J
Date of judgment:	28 January 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE – Where assertion of extent of overseas property interests of the wife – Where husband seeks order to facilitate disclosure of documents relating to same – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where consideration of discretion in rule 13.22 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where application dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 13.18, 13.22
Number of paragraphs:	45
Date of last submission/s:	4 December 2020
Date of hearing:	17 November 2020
Place:	Parramatta
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Hammond Nguyen Turnbull
Solicitor for the Respondent:	John & Co Lawyers

ORDERS

PAC 917 of 2019
BETWEEN:	MR FAZIL Applicant
AND:	MS FAZIL Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	FOSTER J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 JANUARY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The husband’s Application in a Case filed 23 October 2020 is dismissed.

2.The question of costs as to the Application in a Case be reserved to final hearing.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fazil & Fazil has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FOSTER J:

1. In the context of ongoing property proceedings commenced by the applicant wife by Initiating Application filed 27 February 2019, the husband makes application for interlocutory orders pursuant to his Application in a Case filed 23 October 2020.

2. In her Initiating Application the wife somewhat inelegantly seeks a primary order that the parties do all things necessary to distribute the net pool of assets as to 70 per cent to the wife and 30 per cent to the husband.  No doubt that application will require amendment prior to final hearing. 

3. The husband filed a Response on 29 April 2009 to the wife’s Initiating Application.  He sought orders that the net pool of assets be distributed as to 65 per cent to the husband and 35 per cent to the wife and sought various orders in specie in relation to the property and the parties to do all acts and things to give effect to the distribution sought by him. 

4. The proceedings appear to have languished in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for more than 12 months before proceedings were transferred to this Court presumably by reason of asserted complexity.

5. Upon transfer to this Court, proceedings were listed for directions before a registrar on 9 June 2020. On that date it was noted by…