Joubert & Anor and Verhoeven & Anor

The parties in this matter were the wife, Mr C Joubert, and B Pty Ltd. The wife had joined Mr Joubert's brother and B Pty Ltd as respondents to substantive family law proceedings. The second and third respondents sought to bifurcate the proceedings to determine a specific issue concerning whether Mr Joubert was a beneficial owner of ordinary shares in B Pty Ltd. The court was the Family Court of Australia, with Stevenson J presiding.

The legal issues before the court were whether to order a separate hearing for the discrete issue of Mr Joubert's beneficial ownership of shares in B Pty Ltd, pursuant to rules 10.13 and 10.14 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). Additionally, the court considered whether a bifurcated issue could be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales while the remainder of the proceedings remained in the Family Court, in light of section 45(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Stevenson J considered the principles governing the exercise of discretion to order a separate determination of an issue, drawing on case law such as *Southwell v Bennett*. The court noted that bifurcation is generally approached with caution and that the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, namely the just, quick, and cheap resolution of proceedings, must be given effect. The court was not persuaded that bifurcating the proceedings would lead to an expeditious disposal, as the issue was not a narrow point and a bifurcated hearing would not necessarily be shorter or cheaper. Furthermore, the court found that section 45(2) of the Family Law Act did not confer power to transfer a bifurcated issue in the manner sought, and there was a risk of conflicting findings of fact and credit by different judges.

The court ordered that the Further Amended Application in a Case filed by Mr C Joubert and B Pty Ltd be dismissed. The court also ordered that proceedings number SYC4981/2016 be expedited.