Ivers & Sethi

In *Ivers & Sethi*, the applicant, Ms Ivers, sought a property settlement following the breakdown of a de facto relationship with the respondent, Mr Sethi. The central dispute concerned allegations that Mr Sethi and his former wife, Ms B Sethi, had colluded to dissipate assets during the de facto relationship. Specifically, the applicant alleged that a property settlement between Mr Sethi and Ms B Sethi, which resulted in Ms B Sethi receiving the majority of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property, was designed to minimise any claim Ms Ivers might have to a property settlement. Ms Ivers further contended that Mr Sethi retained an equitable interest in a property subsequently purchased by Ms B Sethi, or alternatively, that the transaction between Mr Sethi and Ms B Sethi should be set aside. The matter came before Williams J of the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms B Sethi should be joined as a second respondent to the substantive property proceedings. This joinder was sought on the basis that Ms B Sethi's rights could be directly affected by the outcome of the property settlement proceedings, and her participation was necessary for the court to determine all issues in dispute, particularly concerning the alleged dissipation of assets and potential equitable interests. The court was required to consider the principles governing the joinder of parties under rules 6.02 and 6.03 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth).

Williams J reasoned that Ms B Sethi was a necessary party to the proceedings because the applicant's case involved allegations of a conspiracy to defeat her claim, and the distribution of property between Mr Sethi and Ms B Sethi was central to these allegations. The court applied rule 6.02(1) of the *Family Law Rules 2004*, which mandates that a person whose rights may be directly affected by an issue in a case, and whose participation is necessary for the court to determine all issues in dispute, must be included as a party. Given the applicant's assertion that Mr Sethi held an equitable interest in the property purchased by Ms B Sethi, or that the prior transaction should be set aside, Ms B Sethi's involvement was deemed essential for a just and complete determination of the matter.

The court ordered that Ms B Sethi be joined as the second respondent to the proceedings. The applicant was directed to file and serve a Statement of Claim against Ms B Sethi within 28 days of the order. The application in a case filed on 18 November 2020 was otherwise dismissed, and all extant applications were to be listed before a Registrar for mention.