Hui & Bai

In the matter of Hui & Bai, Hartnett J considered interim applications concerning parenting and property disputes between the parties. The parenting dispute involved the Applicant's request for children to spend time with both parents on a week-about basis, which had been unilaterally terminated by the Respondent following allegations of child abuse. The Respondent sought orders for substantial and significant time with the Applicant. In the property proceedings, the Applicant sought an injunction and the appointment of a single expert business valuer for corporate entities, while the Respondent sought valuations of other entities, including property holding entities.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in the parenting proceedings, considering the primary and additional considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This included assessing the weight to be given to the children's views as expressed to a court-appointed expert. In the property proceedings, the court had to consider the appropriate interim orders for the valuation of various corporate and property holding entities, the appointment of a co-director for the parties' commercial entities, and the management of joint funds and disclosure issues.

Regarding the parenting arrangements, the court noted the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of child abuse and considered the family report prepared by a court expert. In the property proceedings, the court ordered that valuations of real properties be paid equally by the parties. To address concerns about commercial transparency, the court ordered the appointment of the Respondent as a co-director of the corporate entities, a role the Applicant had held solely for 13 years, and as a co-signatory on their bank accounts, provided it did not adversely affect existing credit facilities. The court also imposed an injunction restraining the parties from withdrawing more than $18,000 per month from joint accounts without written agreement, and reserved the question of the Respondent's liability for half the cost of a specific property valuation to trial.