Houk & Vrubel
[2025] FedCFamC1F 435
•11 June 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Houk & Vrubel [2025] FedCFamC1F 435
File number(s): SYC 8587 of 2022 Judgment of: CHRISTIE J Date of judgment: 11 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interlocutory Application – Historical Valuations – Real Properties and Companies – Interim Financial Injunction - Where there is dispute about commencement date of de facto relationship – Where there is dispute about timeframe for historical valuations Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, r 7.04 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of hearing: 11 June 2025 Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Applicant of the primary proceeding: Mr Cameron Counsel for the Respondent in the primary proceeding: Mr Cantrall Solicitor for the Respondent in the primary proceeding: Diamond Conway Lawyers ORDERS
SYC 8587 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS HOUK
Applicant
AND: MR VRUBEL
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.By consent, leave is granted to the respondent to file an Amended Application in a Proceeding and supporting affidavit.
2.By consent, the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 6 June 2025 is determined on 11 June 2025.
3.The respondent file and serve a costs notice by 4:00pm on 12 June 2025.
Historical Valuation
4.By no later than 4:00pm on 18 June 2025, the wife nominate a valuer from the husband’s list of valuers, which is Annexure A to these orders, to conduct the historical valuations of the properties set out in order 5.
5.The parties forthwith instruct the nominated valuer to value the following properties on the following dates:
Residential Properties
(a)B Street, Suburb C NSW as at 23 December 1988 and October 1990;
(b)D Street, Suburb E NSW as at 23 December 1988 and October 1990; and
Commercial Properties
(c)F Street, Suburb G NSW as at 23 December 1988 and October 1990.
6.That in further implementation of order 5:
(a)the wife execute the joint letter of instructions to the valuer to conduct the historical valuations, which is annexure B to these orders, within 7 days of the wife’s nomination, and within 7 days of receipt of the executed joint letter of instructions from the wife, the husband execute and send the joint letter of instructions to the nominated valuer; and
(b)In the event that the valuer requests information from the parties to enable them to complete the valuation report, the parties shall supply the information within 14 days of the request and provide a copy to one another.
7.By no later than 4:00pm on 2 July 2025, the parties execute the joint letter of instructions, which is annexure C to these orders, and do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to instruct the single expert Mr H of J Valuations to conduct a historical valuation of the property at K Street, Suburb M NSW as follows:
(a)as at 29 September 2008; and
(b)as at 17 October 2011.
8.In further implementation of order 7, in the event that Mr H requests information from the parties to enable him to complete the valuation report, the parties shall supply the information within 14 days of the request and provide a copy to one another.
9.The costs of the valuations shall be met by the respondent in the primary proceedings, subject to any court order.
10.The Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 6 June 2025 is otherwise dismissed.
11.The applicant has leave to annex and rely on more than 10 annexures to her affidavit sworn 27 May 2025 in support of her Response to the Application in a Proceeding filed on 27 May 2025.
Updated Valuations and Disclosure
12.On or before 4:00pm on 18 June 2025, the respondent de facto husband pay to:
(a)L Pty Ltd the sum of $7,975,00 in payment of tax invoice …; and
(b)$4,400 AUD to N Pty Ltd.
13.On or before 4:00pm on 18 June 2025, the respondent provide to the applicant’s solicitors answers to the requests for financial disclosure in the following letters: -
(a)Letter from Diamond Conway to O Lawyers dated 25 November 2024 requesting particulars of international transfers of funds made by the applicant during the period 8 May 2021 through to 17 July 2024.
(b)Letter dated 25 February 2025 from Diamond Conway to O Lawyers seeking particulars of specific transactions.
(c)Letter dated 5 May 2025 seeking particulars in relation to Aircraft 1 and aircraft parts.
(d)Letter dated 5 May 2025 from Diamond Conway to O Lawyers seeking particulars in relation to Aircraft 2.
(e)Letter dated 5 May 2025 from Diamond Conway Lawyers to O Lawyers seeking particulars of payments to Mr P.
14.By 4.00pm on 11 February 2026, the parties do all acts and things to request Mr H to update his valuation report dated 22 February 2024 of the Y Precinct K Street, Suburb M.
15.By 4.00pm on 11 February 2026, the parties do all acts and things to update the expert report of Mr Q in relation to the value of R Pty Ltd as trustee for Vrubel Family Trust, S Pty Ltd, T Pty Ltd.
16.By 4.00pm on 11 February 2026, the parties do all acts and things to update the expert report of the Suburb U property completed by Mr V in the employ of W Valuations.
17.By 4:00pm on 6 April 2026, each party must do all things necessary to satisfy their duty of full and frank disclosure and, forthwith thereafter file and serve an Undertaking as to Disclosure.
Liberty
18.The parties shall be at liberty to issue up to 5 subpoenas each, with each such subpoena to be returnable no later than 14 days prior to the first day of the hearing.
19.The parties have liberty to restore on 7 days notice in the event of any issue arising in relation to updating of the valuation reports or other matter going to the preparation for hearing.
Trial
20.The matter is listed for a 5-day trial commencing at 10:00am on 11 May 2026 in Sydney before the Honourable Justice Christie.
21.The applicant file and serve any Amended Application for Final Order by no later than 4:00pm on 2 April 2026.
22.The respondent file and serve any Amended Response by no later than 4:00pm on 17 April 2026.
23.By no later than 4:00pm on 24 April 2026, the parties each file and serve:
(a)A single consolidated trial affidavit;
(b)Witness affidavits upon which he/she intends to rely on at trial; and
(c)An updated financial statement.
24.By no later than 4:00pm on 1 May 2026, the parties file and serve an Outline of Case (Final Hearing) setting out a list of affidavits that they rely upon for trial and a short outline of the legal and factual issues requiring judicial determination.
PENDING FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
25.The respondent (being Mr Vrubel) be restrained from disposing or encumbering the aircraft and aircraft parts, the subject of the single expert valuation undertaken by Mr X of L Pty Ltd, unless he has provided 14-days written notice to the applicant’s solicitors and the proposed sale price is equal to or above the value of Mr X’s valuation.
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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CHRISTIE J:
These are interim financial proceedings before the Court in respect of case management. The primary proceedings concern financial adjustment as between the parties at the conclusion of their de facto relationship. The parties are in dispute about when the relationship commenced. The wife says 23 December 1988. The husband says October 1990. This has some relevance to the proposed valuation of properties and entities as at the date of cohabitation. In any event, it is a long relationship, and the parties remain separated under one roof.
These proceedings commenced in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) and were transferred to this Court on 8 April 2025. The parties have prepared a draft balance sheet, and subject to valuation issues, the property of the parties is at least approximately $18 million. The parties have engaged in the process of obtaining expert evidence in a view to settle a balance sheet and narrow the issues between them. This application concerns whether or not there should be a single expert appointed to value properties which were owned either by the husband or by entities with which he is associated as at the time of the parties’ cohabitation.
Between the time of the filing of the application and today, the issues have narrowed such that the husband only seeks that four pieces of real property be valued. The wife, for her part, resists the making of any order for appointment of a single expert on the basis that discovery which has been provided by the husband is so inadequate that any evidence which might be obtained by virtue of the single expert producing a figure for the value of any of those properties would be meaningless. I have some sympathy for the respondent’s position. In the absence of any evidence about what the liabilities were between 1988 and the sale of some of these properties in the 1990s - and in some cases later - the value of the properties as at the date of cohabitation does not have any relevance. However, the husband is entitled to gather such evidence as may be relevant at a final hearing. Accordingly, I do not propose to dismiss his application at this stage. Instead, I propose to make some of the orders which he seeks and an order that he be responsible for payment of the fees, subject to any contrary order at a later date.
The response also sought orders in respect of discovery. It is important that each party give full and frank financial disclosure in respect of all matters relevant to the proceedings. The importance of transfers of what I am told is approximately $1 million could not be more significant or relevant to the disposition of the proceedings. Accordingly, it is appropriate that I make the orders which the respondent seeks.
The parties are issue about the time frame in which the information ought be provided. I accept that there is some time imperative, however, I think it is best that the husband be given that time that he thinks he needs. Accordingly, approximately twenty-eight days would seem to be a fair compromise.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Christie. Associate:
Dated: 30 June 2025
0
0
1