Lalani & Lalani
[2025] FedCFamC1F 150
•11 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Lalani & Lalani [2025] FedCFamC1F 150
File number(s): PAC 1553 of 2023 Judgment of: RIETHMULLER J Date of judgment: 11 March 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PARENTING AND PROPERTY ORDERS – Where respondent wife seeks to discharge orders providing for supervised time with eldest child – Where wife seeks to include third parties in supervised time with the eldest child – Where wife seeks that the eldest child’s time with her coincides with the younger child’s time – Where wife seeks a number of impractical parenting orders – Where variation of existing parenting orders are not in the best interests of the children – Where applicant husband seeks to use properties to obtain litigation funding – Both husband and wife to receive $200,000 in partial property settlement – Husband and wife granted leave to sign litigation funding agreements – No matters of principle. Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 7.08 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 62 Date of hearing: 2 December 2024 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Morizov, York Law Family Law Specialists The First Respondent: Litigant in person Solicitor for the Second to Fifth Respondents: Did not participate Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Wilkins, Phillip A Wilkins & Associates ORDERS
PAC 1553 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR LALANI
Applicant
AND: MS LALANI
First Respondent
C PTY LTD
Second Respondent
B PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
RIETHMULLER J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Litigation funding
1.The applicant husband is granted leave to sign a funding agreement with D Financial Services to obtain the sum of $250,000 for the payment of his legal costs and disbursements in these proceedings, and thereafter do all acts and things required of him to consent to the registration of a caveat by the D Financial Services against his interest in 1 E Street, Suburb F, NSW (“the E Street property”).
2.The respondent wife is granted leave to sign a litigation funding agreement to obtain the sum of $250,000 for the payment of her legal costs and disbursements in these proceedings, and thereafter do all acts and things required of her to consent to the registration of a caveat by a litigation funder against her interest in the E Street property, and her interest in 1 and 2 G Street, Suburb H, NSW (“the G Street properties”), as security for such litigation funding agreement.
Sale of the City K property
3.The husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to authorise his solicitor to pay from his share of the net proceeds of sale of J Street, City K, NSW (“the City K property”) (after payment of the amounts referred to in Orders 29(a), (b), (c) and (d)(i) of the Orders made on 11 October 2024):
(a)The sum of $50,000 or such other amount as agreed between the husband and the wife shall remain in the trust account of the husband’s solicitor to meet the ongoing payment of supervisory and family therapy costs and expenses pursuant to Orders 10(c) and 14(d)(iii) of the Orders made on 11 October 2024; and
(b)The balance shall be divided equally between the husband and wife and the amount paid to each of them shall be categorised as a partial property settlement to each of them.
Sale of the Suburb L property
4.The husband is at liberty to do all acts and things and sign all documents to sell his one-half interest in M Street, Suburb L, NSW (“the Suburb L property”) to the fifth respondent for the sum of $700,000 and the fifth respondent shall do all acts and things to:
(a)Pay to the husband upon the settlement of the sale of the City K property his one-half share of the net sale proceeds (being the amount to be received by the fifth respondent pursuant to Order 29(c) of the Orders made on 11 October 2024); and
(b)Pay to the husband the balance of the sale price on or prior to the settlement of the sale of the City K property.
5.Pending further order, the husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents to pay the amount received from the sale of his one-half interest in the Suburb L property in the following manner:
(a)The sum of $200,000 shall be paid to each of the husband and the wife and the amount paid to each of them shall be categorised as a partial property settlement to each of them; and
(b)The balance shall be held in the trust account of the husband’s solicitor pending further order or as agreed between the husband and the wife.
Disclosure of recordings
6.The husband and wife each provide disclosure of any audio or video recordings made to the other party within 7 days of the date of these Orders.
AND FURTHER
7.In the event that a party seeks to inspect the device that made recordings disclosed in these proceedings:
(a)That inspecting party shall provide the other party with a list of three proposed experts;
(b)The producing party shall choose one expert from the list and notify the inspecting party in writing within 7 days;
(c)In the event that the producing party fails to notify the inspecting party in writing within 7 days, the inspecting party be at liberty to choose an expert from the list; and
(d)The producing party provide the device to the nominated expert for inspection at a time and place notified in writing at least 3 days before the inspection time.
8.Both the husband and wife shall be restrained from disclosing to, or discussing with, the children (X and Y), or any third party (save for his or her legal representatives), the contents of the recordings, the existence of the recordings and/or any information relating to the recordings produced by the husband or wife in response to Orders 6 and 7 above.
General
9.The husband is to produce within 14 days of the date of these Orders all documents identifying any communication with NSW Police from 11 May 2024 to the date of these Orders.
10.The wife’s Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 15 November 2024 be dismissed.
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 the pseudonym, Lalani & Lalani, has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RIETHMULLER J:
The applicant husband and respondent wife have pending parenting and property settlement proceedings. Interim applications have been made with respect to both parenting and property. It is appropriate to consider the parenting applications first.
The proceedings were commenced by the husband on 28 March 2023. The first appearances were on 4 May 2023 before a registrar who made consent orders for a short form family report and for the significant financial disputes to be listed before a judge of Division 2. The registrar then made further orders (in chambers) on 15 May 2023 for the filing of material for the interim hearing. On 17 July 2023 the matter came before a judge of Division 2 and was adjourned to 20 July 2023 when it was adjourned again to 27 July 2023. On 27 July 2023, interim injunctions were made to prevent the husband from dealing with property and the matter adjourned to 10 August 2023, in part to allow for the wife to file an amended response. On 10 August 2023, additional respondents were joined and the matter transferred to Division 1.
On 4 September 2023, a registrar made detailed disclosure orders and orders for the filing of amended applications and responses and points of claim. On 3 November 2023, it was noted that unfortunately the short form family report was still not available, and orders were made extending the times for compliance with various September directions with which the parties had not complied. The report was made available soon after and released to the parties on 9 November 2023 by a registrar (in chambers).
On 20 December 2023, the matter was listed before me, however, the wife had not filed her affidavit with respect to interim parenting issues. Directions were made for filing the affidavit and listing the interim parenting dispute before a senior judicial registrar on 5 February 2024 for an interim hearing. The appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer (“ICL”) was also ordered that day. The following day, various procedural orders were made with respect to the property issues as there remained a need for the parties to properly formulate their claims and responses, despite previous attempts to have the parties clearly articulate their claims.
On 8 January 2024, procedural orders were made by a registrar with respect to filing material for the interim parenting orders and changing the hearing date before the senior judicial registrar to 13 March 2024 as it had become apparent that the interim hearing would now take in excess of two hours.
On 1 February 2024, the registrar was required to deal with various subpoena objections, as was the senior judicial registrar hearing the parenting issues on 13 March 2024. The senior judicial registrar reserved her decision on the parenting issue, making interim parenting orders on 18 March 2023.
On 24 April 2024, consent orders were made joining the husband’s brother, enjoining the fourth respondent from dealings in much of the property of the parties, and importantly, for valuations of the real properties, businesses and significant chattels of the parties.
By 20 May 2024, the parties were back before the Court as they could not agree on the valuers to be appointed, and it seems were unable to agree on adopting the usual process of one nominating three valuers and the other choosing, which I ultimately ordered. Further disclosure orders were made by consent together with orders that the husband apply the proceeds of sale from his interest in a business to various debts.
On 17 June 2024, the parties again appeared before me seeking a s 62G report and various orders concerning payment of debts. At that time, I also ordered that the parties attend a mediation with a senior mediator and listed the wife’s application to vary the parenting interim orders before a senior judicial registrar. I ordered the release of the family report on 21 August 2024 in chambers.
The parties remained unable to arrange the valuations, requiring a further interlocutory hearing before me on 29 August 2024 to settle the letter of instruction to a valuer and require the parties to sign same. Orders were also made for the wife to produce to the husband the many cartons of business records that were in the home she occupied as she had failed to comply with an earlier order to do so and had taken no steps to copy those of the documents she sought to retain. Orders were made for the use of a commercial copy centre to carry out the task given the wife’s earlier failures to attend to this matter.
Whilst the interim parenting issue was listed for 4 September 2024, it was adjourned at the request of the wife due to illness of her counsel. That hearing was adjourned to 18 September 2024 when it was referred back to me for hearing.
On 18 September 2024, I made detailed trial directions. The matter was again before me on 11 October 2024 when detailed interim parenting orders were made by consent. Orders were also made for the sale of the City K property. Complex orders were also made for the wife to recover a phone she owned from the child in the husband’s care which required the intervention of an IT expert to ensure the child did not lose his data stored on the phone. The orders as framed concerning the phone proved to be insufficient and further orders were required on 16 October 2024. There is no doubt that the costs incurred in retrieving the phone from the child were far greater than the value of the phone. Due to the increasing complexity created by the parties, orders were made for the wife to serve her responding material within 21 days with respect to the husband’s Application in a Proceeding filed only two days earlier on 14 October 2024.
On 22 November 2024, it was apparent that the wife (who was then unrepresented) had filed two affidavits in the week before the interim hearing, some 133 pages in total, and sought to file further documents. The interim hearing was adjourned to 2 December 2024 for hearing with procedural directions. Since that hearing, the wife has filed a further 11 subpoenas. The disputes concerning subpoenas and inspection of documents have continued unabated, requiring registrar orders on 25 July 2024, 15 August 2024, 6 November 2024, 5 December 2024, 29 January 2025 and 28 February 2025.
PARENTING PROCEEDINGS
The parties have two children, the eldest of which is now 12 years of age and the youngest now 5 years of age. There is a history of police involvement. At around the time of separation, the husband was charged by the police the assaults on the wife, which resulted in a defended hearing. The local court judge dismissed the charges with her Honour commenting that “[t]hroughout her evidence, the complainant’s evidence, I did find her to be deflective of questions” (Husband’s affidavit filed 28 August 2024, p.60). More recently, police obtained an ADVO against the wife for the protection of the eldest child and have brought proceedings against her for breaching that order.
On 18 March 2024, comprehensive interim parenting orders were made by a senior judicial registrar after hearing the parties, which provided for the children to live with the wife and to have time with the husband, together with orders dealing with a raft of ancillary parenting issues.
Difficulties with respect to the care arrangements for the eldest child (following his disclosures of assaults by the wife for which the wife was charged by the police) led to consent orders on 11 October 2024 providing for the eldest child to live with the husband together with a number of orders relating to the child’s time with the wife to be supervised together with the participation of the parties in family therapy.
The wife seeks a number of interlocutory orders relating to supervision of her time with the eldest child:
SUPERVISION
1.Supervision visit handover to occur at the [wife’s] residence or as per written agreement by the husband and wife. [Wife] is permitted from removing [X] with the supervisor from the handover location (suspending order 6 of court order 11 October 2024).
2.The [wife] is at liberty to choose supervised locations in line with the supervising agency and the people who come into contact with [X] during the supervised visits. The [husband] is not to have any disclosure of the locations and people of contact list from Supervising Agency or through his legal representative from the supervisors’ reports.
3.The husband is to be restrained from accessing Supervised Report or have content relayed to him from the Supervised visit whether it be by his legal representative or the Supervising Service (Amending Order 7 of court Order 11 October 2024).
4.[Y’s] holiday and special events handover pursuant to orders of 18 March 2024 that fall and coincides with [X's] Supervised scheduled visit be aligned at the same time and location as [X’s] supervised visits and handover through the Supervisor.
5.The husband is to sign upon receipt of any supervising service application forms in the event that [N Family Services] is on holiday leave or unavailable to cater to the supervised visits timeslots.
(Wife’s Application in a Proceeding filed 25 November 2024)
The wife also seeks various orders relating to family therapy, disclosure, communication, schooling, and other issues:
6.The husband is to immediately schedule his four sessions with [P Family Services] [Dr O] as per order 11 October 2024 from date of order and issue a booking schedule issued by the centre to the [wife].
7.The husband within 7 days of order respond to all the wife’s request of disclosure queries pertaining to the children but not limited to, all [X’s] extracurricular activities schedule and details of their venues and services, all hospital documentation discharge summaries, referrals and all outstanding queries to date. The husband is to comply with orders of 18 March 2024. I seek the court issue stringent consequences to the [husband] should he continue to not comply with the orders.
8.The husbands 7pm call with the [Y] on Sunday’s be suspended (amending order 7(a) of Court Order 18 March 2024).
SCHOOL
9.The husband do all acts and things necessary to accept the offer from [Q School] and withdraw [Y’s] enrolment from [DD School].
10.The husband to leave immediately upon farewelling the child at any event whether it be on School ground or outside school events encounters involving the children. The husband is not to intimidate or harass the wife.
11.Order for the husband not to interfere with [X] attending his functions and hinder [X] from approaching the wife.
OTHER
12.The husband’s solicitor to make available the redacted subpoenaed material of order 6 November 2024 from [EE Company] and have produced within 7 dates of this order.
13.I seek advice for measures to have someone monitor or assess [X] while under [the husband’s] care or other measures to address the concern of psychological and emotional abuse of [X] and monitoring as deposed in the Affidavit with Constraints if no compliance.
14.Registrar may execute documents in place of party who fails to do so (s 106A). If after a written request from the other party either party refuses or neglects to sign or execute and return a document when obliged to do so under this order, within three days of the request a Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is hereby appointed under section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 to execute such document on behalf of that party.
(Wife’s Application in a Proceeding filed 25 November 2024)
In order 1 of the wife’s orders sought, she seeks to discharge or vary order 6 of the 11 October 2024 orders providing for supervised time between her and the eldest child. These orders were made by consent. The ICL opposes order 1 given the supervision service, N Family Services, has their own policies as to how supervisory services are conducted. The husband also opposes this order. The purpose of the order is to not only ensure the safety of the eldest child but allow the child to feel safe when seeing the wife. The supervision service has professional supervisors. The husband has not agreed to the wife having supervised time at her residence. She should not be able to dictate to the supervisor the location for visits.
There was considerable dispute as to the process for engaging the supervision centre, however the supervision centre has now been appointed. Disputes as to the details of the process are better dealt with at trial, if they remain relevant.
The parties were in dispute as to whether visits could take place at a cinema. The husband’s concerns related to the ability of the supervisor to supervise in a darkened cinema. More importantly, if the process is primarily for the purpose of establishing relations between the wife and the child, it is difficult to see what level of interaction they will have viewing a film in a cinema. I am not persuaded that the husband was unreasonable with respect to this objection.
The ICL opposes order 2 of the orders sought on the basis that as the wife has not spent time with the child for a considerable length of time, it is more appropriate for time to be solely between the wife and the child, rather than including third parties. I am also unpersuaded that I should make orders allowing the wife to have other people present for supervised visits as first, the primary purpose is to address her relationship with the child, and secondly, the husband alleges that one of her family members called the child “judas” in response to hearing the child had made disclosures to the police. The wife says in her affidavit of 25 November 2024, the effect of the orders she seeks is orders “granting [her] autonomy during the visitation” (p.68).
There is no evidence offered as to how the visits have progressed. I am not persuaded that the wife has shown that there are changes in circumstances that warrant changing the existing orders in this respect, nor that a change would be in the child’s best interests.
Order 3 as proposed by the wife seeks to stop the husband having information from the supervisors. It is based upon her claims that he is stalking her. However, only three events are listed in her affidavit all of which occurred months before the interim orders that she seeks to vary. She says that he attended at the school “during my court ordered pickup schedule” in May 2024, however she did not see him at the school (Wife’s Affidavit filed 25 November 2024, p.6). She says she found out after the event that the husband was in the vicinity of her house in mid-2024 when the police were called concerning the child’s allegations against her (although she did not see him there). She also says he attended the court when her criminal law matter was mentioned in mid-2024, (although she did not see him there, she said she found out through subpoenaed material). I am not persuaded that these events, if true, would justify the husband being denied information on the progression of supervision. I see no basis on the evidence for reviewing the husband’s Sunday night telephone contact with the younger child, as proposed by the wife in order 8.
I am not persuaded that the younger child’s arrangements should be adjusted to coincide with the supervised time, as sought in the proposed order 4. The number of visits concerned is likely to be very small, and there is already considerable complexity with respect to the relationship between the wife and eldest child. To add the youngest child to these arrangements would simply draw him into this aspect of the dispute, which cannot be in his best interests at this stage.
A number of the orders sought are no longer required on a practical level, as the ICL pointed out:
(a)Orders 5 and 6 have been complied with already. Thus, there is no point to such orders.
(b)Order 7 of the wife’s orders sought is already the subject of orders 11 and 15 of the orders of 18 March 2024.
(c)Order 9 is no longer necessary as the child has already been enrolled in school and the parties have attended the orientation.
It appears that orders 10 and 11 were sought after disputes following the eldest child not attending the School Christmas Carols and not attending the graduation the following day. The dispute concerning these events is best left to be the subject of evidence at trial. If there is specific conduct in the future that warrants orders, then it is appropriate to consider specific orders at that time. The orders sought by the wife in their current form would effectively exclude the husband from school events, thus are not appropriate in their current form in any event. I am not persuaded to make such orders on the present evidence.
The task addressed by order 12 has been carried out and thus the order is not required.
The ICL submitted that the wife’s order 13 would not be enforceable. More importantly, it seeks to have the Court provide advice to the wife. It is not appropriate for the Court to provide the wife with advice on the conduct of the proceedings. Similarly, the wife’s claim in her outline that the Court owes her a “duty of care” is also misconceived. It is not the role of the Court to advise a party; otherwise, the Court would then be partisan. Order 13 is not appropriate to make as an order of the Court. The wife ought to seek legal advice either from private solicitors or through legal aid or a community legal centre.
Order 14 does not seem relevant (being an order for a s 106A mechanism to be put into place) to any issue at present and thus will not be made.
For the foregoing reasons, I am not persuaded to vary the interim parenting orders or make additional interim parenting orders.
PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS
In the property settlement proceedings, both parties seek orders that primarily concern litigation funding.
The husband filed an Application in a Proceeding on 14 October 2024 (amended on 29 November 2024) seeking various property orders:
…
Varying injunction
2.The husband be permitted to sign the funding agreement with [D Financial Services] for the payment of his costs and disbursements in these proceeding in the sum of $250,000 and thereafter do all acts and things and sign all documents to consent to the registration of a caveat against his interest in the following properties:
2.1 [R Street, Town S]
2.2 [1 E Street , Suburb F]
2.3 [M Street, Suburb L] [Suburb L property]
2.4 [J Street, City K] [City K property]
3.If contracts for the sale of the [Suburb L] property and or the [City K] property are exchanged, the husband shall do all acts and things to remove at his sole expense the caveat registered against the said property prior to the settlement of the sale of the said property.
Sale of [J Street, City K]
4.The husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to authorise his solicitor to pay from his share of the net proceeds of sale of the [City K] property (after payment of the amounts referred to in orders 29(a), (b), (c) and (d)(i) of the orders made on 11 October 2024):
4.1The sum of $50,000 or such other amount as agreed between the husband and the wife shall remain in the trust account of the husband's solicitor to meet the ongoing payment of supervisory and family therapy costs and expenses pursuant to orders 10(c) and 14(d)(iii) of the orders made on 11 October 2024;
4.2The balance shall be divided equally between the husband and the wife and the amount paid to each of them shall be categorised as partial property settlement to each of them.
Sale of [M Street, Suburb L]
5.The husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents to sell his one-half interest in the [Suburb L] property to the fifth respondent for the sum of $700,000 and the fifth respondent shall do all acts and things to:
5.1Pay to the husband upon the settlement of the sale of the [City K] property his one-half share of the net sale proceeds (being the amount to be received by the fifth respondent pursuant to order 29(c) of the orders made on 11 October 2024);
5.2Pay to the husband the balance of the sale price on or prior to the settlement of the sale of the [City K] property.
6.Pending further order, the husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents to pay the amount received from the sale of his one-half interest in the [Suburb L] property in the following manner:
6.1The sum of $200,000 shall be paid to each of the husband and the wife and the amount paid to each of them shall be categorised as partial property settlement to each of them;
6.2The balance shall be held in the trust account of his solicitor pending further order or as agreed between the husband and the wife.
Disclosure of recordings in the possession of the wife
7.The wife shall provide to the husband's solicitor within 7 days of the making of these orders:
7.1The recording she made on 14 May 2024 (referred to at paragraph 49 of the Affidavit of the Wife affirmed 28 August 2024)
7.2The recording she made on 16 May 2024 (referred to at paragraph 75 of the Affidavit of the Wife affirmed 28 August 2024)
7.3The recording she made on 17 July 2024 (referred to at paragraph 125 of the Affidavit of the Wife affirmed 28 August 2024)
7.4All recordings, whether audio or video, of conversations with [X] between the period of 13 May 2024 to date;
7.5All recordings, whether audio or video, of conversations with or of the husband between the period of 2 February 2021 to date,
Provided that the husband's solicitor shall not provide any of the recordings to the husband without the wife's prior written consent or an order of the Court.
8.The wife shall produce for inspection by the husband and his solicitor the device used by the wife to make any of the recordings referred to in order 7 of this application.
9.The husband shall be restrained from disclosing to or discussing with [X] or any third party (save for his legal representatives) the recordings, the contents of the recordings, the existence of the recordings and or any information relating to the recordings produced by the wife in response to order 7 above.
Disclosure by the husband
10.The husband is to produce within 14 days of the date of these orders all documents identifying any communication with NSW Police from 11 May 2024 to the date of these orders.
General
11. The balance of the wife's Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 15 November 2024 be dismissed.
12.If either the wife refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to these orders then the Registrar of the court be appointed pursuant to Section 106A of the Family Law Act, 1975 to execute such deed or instrument in the name of the wife and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instrument and the wife shall pay the husband's costs associated with the application on an indemnity basis.
13.The wife pay the husband's costs of and incidental to this application.
(As per the original)
In her Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 15 November 2024, the wife seeks the following orders:
Litigation Funding
Wife’s Primary Proposal
1.Husband to amend the valuation of [1 E Street] property in his [D Financial Services] application in line with the [T Real Estate Agents] valuation and remove the other properties from his application for the sum of $250,000 based on the current share of security approved by [D Financial Services]. The other properties to remain under the injunction order. The value of the wife’s share of [1 E Street] property to be injuncted.
2.Subject to Orders 1 and 3 to 11 below, the Husband be permitted to sign the funding agreement with [D Financial Services] for the payment of his costs and disbursements in these proceedings in the sum of $250,000 thereafter do all acts and things and sign all documents to consent to the registration of a caveat against his interest in the following property:
a. [1 E Street, Suburb F];
3.If contracts for the sale of the real property referred to in Order 2 above is exchanged pursuant to an order of the Court or an agreement in writing between the Husband and the Wife, the Husband shall do all acts and things to remove at his sole expense the caveat registered against such property prior to the settlement of the sale of that property and in the event that [D Financial Services] requires the discharge or partial discharge of funds owed by the Husband to [D Financial Services] pursuant to their litigation funding agreement in order to remove their caveat and or charge over that property, the Husband shall be solely responsible for the payment of those funds which are not, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Husband and the Wife, to be met from the sale proceeds of the sale of the property.
4.Orders 27-31 of court order 11 October 2024 be suspended or withdrawn regarding the sale of [J Street] with all expenses incurred regarding the sale be nullified in the financials of the proceedings and is to be paid at the expense of [Mr Lalani] and [Mr Breda].
5.An Order that a trustee for sale be appointed pursuant to section 80(1)(e) and/or section 80(1)(k) of the Family Law Act 1975 as Trustee for sale of the following properties:
b. [J Street, City K]
c. [M Street, Suburb L]
6.Subject to order 9 and 10, without limiting the Trustee’s powers under the terms of Order 7 above, the Trustee is empowered to do all things, including signing all documents necessary to effect a sale of the properties referred to in Order 7 above including but not limited to:
a. Determining whether the sale be by private treaty or auction;
b. Nominating a real estate agent to act on the sale;
c. Nominating a solicitor or conveyancer to act on the sale; and
d. Determining the listing price from time to time, or the reserve price in the event of sale by auction and not below the valuation figure, and in so doing is to have regard to the potential of each property.
7.Subject to orders 12-14, properties of order 5 to be sold as fire sale if urgent funding is not provided to the Wife.
8.The trustee is to provide a legally binding undertaking for himself, his nominated agent, solicitor or conveyancer from dealing with the sale of the properties if they have had past, present, or anticipated future dealings, transfer or resale with [Mr Lalani], [Mr Breda], their entities, or their network of family and friends whether be in personal names or entities.
9.An Injunction for any prospective purchaser to provide a legally binding undertaking stating that they are a bona fide purchaser with no prior, current connection or future alliance or dealings, transfer or resale, either personally or through any entities or syndicates or third parties, to [Mr Lalani] or [Mr Breda] or their entities and network of family and friends. The undertaking must be submitted to the court before the sale is finalized to ensure compliance with this order. Noncompliance or breach of the order, the court is to enforce a payment by the purchaser to the equal value of the property purchase to the Wife, undefended.
10.An Order that on completion of the sale of properties referred to in Order 7 above, the proceeds of sale are to be applied in the following manner and priority:
a. In payment of the usual adjustments as between purchaser and vendor, including council and water rates and charges;
b. In payment of all costs and expenses of sale, including the Trustee’s reasonable costs and disbursements, conveyancing fees, agent’s commission, advertising fees and auction expenses; and
c. With the sale of [J Street], an amount be set aside sufficient to cover the estimated costs of supervision fees for [X’s] time with the Wife and family therapy up to the date of the making of final parenting orders (with the quantum to be determined by the Husband and the Wife once they have received an indication from the family therapist of the frequency of sessions recommended by them);
d. From the Husband’s share of the net proceeds of sale of the first sold property in payment of the amount of $250,000 to the Wife by way of interim distribution;
e. In the event that there [J Street] sells first, An amount be set aside sufficient to cover the estimated costs of supervision fees for [X’s] time with the Wife and family therapy up to the date of the making of final parenting orders (with the quantum to be determined by the Husband and the Wife once they have received an indication from the family therapist of the frequency of sessions recommended by them);
f. In the event that [J Street] is sold first and there is insufficient funds from the net proceeds of sale from the [J Street] property, to make payment to the Wife of the $250,000 referred to in Order 10.d. above, then subject to Order 10.e., the Wife is to receive the whole of the remainder of the Husband’s share of the net proceeds of sale of the [J Street] Property and the shortfall of the payment to the Wife is to be met from the Husband’s share of the net proceeds of the sale of the second property.
g. If any balance remaining with either property sold, first option disbursement to pay both children’s 2025 annual school fees.
h. The balance of the net proceeds of sale to be held in the Trust Account of the Trustee for sale pending further Order of the Court or an agreement in writing as between the Husband and the Wife as to the disbursement of those funds.
11.Noting that the Fifth Respondent has not been actively participating in these proceedings and that these Orders were made in the absence of the Fifth Respondent, the Fifth Respondent shall have liberty to apply to relist the proceedings within 14 days from the date of these Orders in the event that they object to these Orders.
Wife’s Primary Funding Proposal
12.The husband is injuncted to have [V Pty Ltd] or its shareholder [W Pty Ltd] to immediately provide an interest free loan to the wife for the total outstanding legal fees to release the claim of lien over her case file.
13.The husband is injuncted through [V Pty Ltd] or its shareholder [W Pty Ltd] to provide the wife further monthly interest free loan instalments to the value of $50,000 on the first day of every month up to the date of the making of final orders commencing 1 December 2024 to commence her legal representation.
14.The husband is injuncted from removing or withdrawing any rent of [2 E Street] in [FF Pty Ltd’s] bank account. The funds are used to facilitate costs of supervision fees for [X’s] time with the Wife and family therapy up to the date of the sale proceeds covering the costs. All future rent shall remain in the account pending agreement in writing between the Husband and the Wife as to the disbursement of those funds or further order of the Court for their use.
Wife’s Alternative Funding Proposal
15.within 7 days after the payment by or on behalf of the Husband of any money in payment of accounts:
a. rendered by the Husband’s lawyers in respect of these proceedings; and
b. rendered by any accountant, valuer or other expert engaged by the Husband in respect of these proceedings;
16.the Husband pay or cause to be paid the same amount of money to any lawyer appointed by the Wife to act for her in these proceedings.
17.That within 7 days after the payment by or on behalf of the Husband of any money referred to in Order 15.a. and 15.b., the Husband shall cause to be given to the Wife’s lawyers a memorandum stating the amount or amounts so paid.
18.All money paid to the Husband’s lawyers by or on behalf of the Husband referred to in Order 15 be held in trust by the Husband’s lawyers and not be applied in payment of his legal costs and outlays until such time as the same amount has been paid by or on behalf of the Husband to the Wife’s lawyers, and in the event that such payment to the Wife’s lawyers has not been made within 7 days after the payment by or on behalf of the Husband of any money referred to in Order 15, the Husband direct his lawyers to pay 50% of the amount or amounts so held by them in trust to the Wife.
19.The amounts paid by or at the direction of the Husband to the Wife’s lawyers under these orders be applied by them in the payment of the Wife’s legal costs and outlays incurred and to be incurred by the Wife in the conduct of these proceedings, including but not limited to the reasonable costs and outlays:
a. rendered by the Wife’s solicitors in respect of these proceedings; and
b. rendered by any accountant, valuer or other expert engaged by the Wife in respect of these proceedings.
20.The characterisation of any interim distributions to the parties pursuant to these orders be determined by the trial judge at the final hearing.
XERO / EMAILS
21.That within 7 days from the date of these Orders, the Husband is to provide to the Wife and assigned shadow professional in order 11, unlimited and unrestricted:
a. admin access to the Xero data files for the entities in the control of the Husband.
b. admin domain and emails for the [V Pty Ltd] and any other entity in the control of the Husband.
c. Admin Microsoft access for the [V Pty Ltd] and any other entity controlled by the husband
22.The wife or the court is to appoint a shadow accountant, shadow IT and director for all entities. The professionals are to work with the wife. Husband to provide what is not accessible in order 21, but not limited to:
a. bank transaction, statement and personal bank accounts fortnightly until final hearing
b. financial records
c. contracts and agreements
d. electronic data of communications
e. employee records
f. any third-party communications
g. receipts and invoices
h. and any other requested documentation of all his entities.
23.The professionals’ costs to be met from the funds held in trust by the husband’s solicitor with any outstanding fees to be paid from the balance of sale proceeds of order 5.
24.That the Wife shall not contact any suppliers or clients associated with the entities in the control of the Husband as may be disclosed in the Xero data files or emails except as through the assigned professional and the legal representatives/ or the legal system as may be required for the purpose of her case. The husband is to provide disclosure to the wife and assigned professional within 7 days of raised queries.
25.The husband is to reinstate the wife’s full access to her email…admin domain and Microsoft history activity and all accounts, apps and otherwise links to her email within 7 days of date of orders.
26.Court or Wife to appoint a Forensic Accountant for all [Mr Lalani’s] personal and entities to investigate and report on the company's financial practices and to have access to all within 7 days from date of orders.
27.Consequences of Non-Compliance with the orders is to be dictated at the discretion of the court.
Recordings
28.Subject to Court decision and if so, orders 18-19 below, within 14 days from the date of these Orders, the Wife is to produce view only via her laptop and in her presence to the ICL, the Husband’s solicitors and husband:
a. The recording made on 14 May 2024 (referred to at paragraph 49 of the Affidavit of the Wife affirmed on 28 August 2024);
b. The recording made on 16 May 2024 (referred to at paragraph 75 of the Affidavit of the Wife affirmed on 28 August 2024); and
c. The recording made on 17 July 2024 (referred to at paragraph 125 of the Affidavit of the Wife affirmed on 28 August 2024).
29.The legal representative of the parties involved shall not have a copy produced pursuant to Order 28 above or disclose or produce the contents of the recordings to any third party.
30.The Husband is restrained from disclosing to or discussing with [X] and any third party (save for his legal representatives) the recordings, the contents and the existence of the recordings or any information relating to the recordings produced pursuant to Order 28 above.
31.Within 14 days from the date of these Orders, the Husband produce to the Wife by way of disclosure:
a. The recording from his motor vehicle made on Friday, 10 May 2024 evidencing the conversation deposed to by the Husband at paragraph 89 of his Affidavit filed on 28 August 2024;
b. The recording from his motor vehicle made on Monday, 13 May 2024 evidencing the conversation deposed to by the Husband at paragraph 97 of his Affidavit filed on 28 August 2024;
c. The recording from his motor vehicle made on Thursday, 16 May 2024 evidencing the conversation deposed to by the Husband at paragraph 121 of his Affidavit filed on 28 August 2024;
d. The recording from his motor vehicle made on Friday, 24 May 2024 evidencing the conversation deposed to by the Husband at paragraph 124 of his Affidavit filed on 28 August 2024; and
e. The recording from his motor vehicle made on Friday, 21 June 2024 evidencing the conversation deposed to by the Husband at paragraph 196 of his Affidavit filed on 28 August 2024.
32.Failure of production of order 31 the husband is injuncted to provide access of his car camera application service provider to a nominated IT specialist nominated by the wife or the court along with devices used to access, download, archive or otherwise the content of the car camera footage.
33.ICL to produce the DCJ subpoenaed material referencing the police report referring to the video in order 32.
34.The husband to produce within 14 days the video presented to police and reported in the DCJ subpoenaed documents where [X] was quoted from along with its associated details but not limited to:
a. identity of the male uncle who made the recording
b. the date of the recording
c. the phone number, device ID, IMEI and the EID of the device that made the recording to confirm the identity of the male uncle
d. Identify if the recording made while [X] was in the care of the uncle
e. Identify if the recording made in the presence or absence of [Mr Lalani’s] care
f. Identify if the uncle was given consent by [Mr Lalani] to make the recording
35.The husband to produce within 14 days all forms of communication whether it be emails, call log, messages and videos that [Mr Lalani] had communicated with NSW Police between 11 May 2024 to date.
OTHER
36.To suspend order 1-4 of order 6 November 2024 and the ICL to ensure all documents and any copies of the documents are destroyed and permanently deleted from any storage or retrieval system (whether held by email, cloud storage or otherwise).
37.That the Orders sought by the Husband in his Application in a Proceeding otherwise be dismissed.
38.That the Husband pay the Wife’s costs of and incidental to this Application.
39.Such further Order as the Court sees fit.
(As per the original)
Two substantive issues were primarily argued. First, whether the husband should be permitted to complete the sale of his interests in two properties to his brother, and secondly, what orders should be made to permit the parties to use various properties as security to obtain litigation funding from a lender (in this case the husband proposes to use D Financial Services).
Property valuations from T Real Estate Agents were obtained and included in the husband’s affidavit filed 29 November 2024 at [8], identifying the value of the properties as follows:
Address of property Ownership Value 1. Z Street, Town AA BB Pty Ltd (as trustee of Superannuation Fund 1) $875,000 2. 1 E Street, Suburb F Mr Lalani & Ms Lalani
as joint tenants$2,900,000 3. 1 CC Street, Suburb F C Pty Ltd $2,100,000 4. 2 CC Street, Suburb F C Pty Ltd $2,100,000 5. 2 E Street, Suburb F C Pty Ltd $2,350,000 6. R Street, Town S Mr Lalani and Ms Lalani $280,000 7. 1 G Street, Suburb H Ms Lalani $1,550,000 8. 2 G Street, Suburb H Ms Lalani $1,550,000 9. M Street, Suburb L Mr Lalani and
Mr Breda as joint tenants$1,445,000 10. J Street, City K Mr Lalani and Mr Breda as tenants in common in equal shares $440,000
The husband says that the valuation of the Suburb F properties (numbered 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the table) if collectively sold, is $9.9 million (approximately $500,000 greater than the individual values due to the properties being adjoining and the site’s classification as a development site).
As at July 2023, the mortgage debts on the real property of the parties was around $3 million, secured over 1 and 2 CC Street, Suburb F, NSW (“the CC Street properties”) (around half over each property). On the Joint Balance Sheet prepared at that time (with the valuations of the real property set out above), the assets of the parties appear to be in excess of $10 million.
Litigation Funding
The main issue in the property proceedings on this interlocutory application appears to be the source of litigation funding for both parties. There appears to be no real dispute that both parties need funds to pay for their representation in the litigation, nor that the case involves large sums that are sufficient to justify significant litigation expenses.
There have been orders that provided for the sale of the City K property and the Suburb L properties. The husband proposes to sell his interests to his brother, as discussed below. If these sales proceed, they will produce some liquid assets.
The husband submitted that D Financial Services requires caveats to be placed on his interests in all four properties although the husband states he will make endeavours to negotiate with D Financial Services to reduce to security.
The primary difficulty with such an approach is that the wife will also need to provide security (by way of caveats against properties) to secure her own litigation funding. The wife’s funding must come from a funder other than D Financial Services, however, she has identified another funder but says they have declined to fund her. The details are far from clear. If the husband is permitted to lodge caveats over properties held by corporate entities to secure his litigation funding, that may complicate the arrangements between the parties and the companies. It appears unnecessary as the husband has a half share in the E Street property which has been valued at $2.9 million (making his share $1.45 million). It is difficult to accept that this would not be sufficient security for litigation funding of $250,000 as sought by the husband. If the caveat only covers his half share, that would not impede the wife using her share in the property for security as well.
The husband also confirmed he consented to the wife lodging caveats over her interests in the properties for the purposes of litigation funding. The wife has title to the properties at 1 and 2 G Street, Suburb H, NSW (“the G Street properties”) which are valued at $3.1 million which can be used for security in addition to her share of the property at E Street.
It appears from the wife’s outline that her main objection is that she opposes the sale of the City K and Suburb L properties by the husband to his brother and seeks to link that issue to the litigation funding issues. I am not persuaded that the issues should be linked. The wife also seeks what is often referred to as “dollar for dollar” orders, that is, for the husband to contribute one dollar to her legal fees for each dollar that he pays toward his own fees. Such orders are useful in cases where one party’s source of funds for legal fees is unknown. In this case, the parties can each adequately fund their proceedings from legal funding providers. Each appear to have sufficient security to offer for at least $250,000 in funding. At this point, I am only persuaded to make orders allowing each to use their respective half share in the E Street property to secure litigation funding of up to $250,000, and to allow the wife to also offer the G Street properties as security for such funding. I am not persuaded that more complex orders concerning litigation funding are reasonably required in this case on the material presently before the Court. Similarly, I am not persuaded to order the husband to make monthly $50,000 loans to the wife for litigation funding in light of the absence of evidence that he has such available funds and the availability of litigation funding for both parties. Should the wife seek spousal maintenance, that should be the subject of a separate application.
The sale of the properties
The wife alleges collusion between the husband and his brother, the fifth respondent, as to the sale price for the City K and Suburb L properties. Whilst the wife does not wish to retain either of these properties, and consents to them being sold, she seeks a delay of the sale and an opportunity to prove her allegations of collusion between the brothers and that the valuations are incorrect. She has not obtained any valuation evidence to challenge the valuations provided by the joint valuer. The sale prices proposed by the husband reflect the valuations (to the extent that the sale to his brother is slightly less than half this only reflects the avoidance of costs of sale with an agent).
The wife pointed to a number of factual claims that she makes to support her allegation of collusion, many of which appear to have little weight in the context of these sales. More importantly, these issues can be rehearsed at trial as the relative value of the properties is only a small portion of the overall assets of the parties. As I am not persuaded that the wife is at any real risk of being unable to obtain her entitlements from the balance of the assets of the parties, even if her allegations prove to be true, I am persuaded to allow the sales to take place. To the extent that the wife simply seeks to block the husband’s brother from buying the husband’s share, there is no good basis for such position: the family law courts generally allow parties to retain property in specie or with their families, provided it does not cause a loss to the other party. Even if the husband expects to buy back his shares from his brother later, provided the sales are for market value, the wife loses nothing. I am not persuaded that an independent trustee for sale is warranted on the facts of this case.
I am not persuaded to vacate the orders of 11 October 2024 providing for the sale of the City K property. I am persuaded to make orders permitting the husband to sell his half share in the Suburb L property to the fifth respondent for $700,000, with $200,000 from the proceeds each going to each the husband and wife as a partial property settlement as they each have a real need for funds to enable them to litigate. The balance of the sale proceeds can be held on trust pending further order.
Whilst the wife proposes that the CC Street properties be sold (noting that it would be financially beneficial if all four Suburb F properties were sold together), that would separate properties the husband seeks to retain as a larger development site. It appears, at least on the material filed to date, that once property settlement orders are made, the husband (and his entities) will have real prospects for obtaining sufficient finance to retain the properties. It is not appropriate for the Court to close off business plans of spouses if that is not required to enable a just and equitable property settlement.
Funding for supervision services for the wife and eldest child
The husband proposes holding $50,000 from the sale of the City K property on trust to meet supervision costs until further order. This is more than adequate. There are sufficient assets of the parties, such that this can be accounted for in the final settlement figures without any real risk of limiting the wife’s entitlements, even if she succeeds in having the Court order the husband pay the entirety of the supervision costs. The delay in effecting this sale has been caused by the wife. The husband’s orders sought in this regard is appropriate.
E Street Rent
The wife seeks orders that the rent obtained from leasing the E Street property be made available to fund a supervisor. As the funding of a supervisor will be met from the sale proceedings of the City K and Suburb L properties (and would have been met by now but for the wife’s unsuccessful opposition to the sales), this order is not required. The rent is less than the various mortgage payments and thus ought to be available to the husband. Any discrepancies can be accounted for at the final hearing.
Supervision records
The wife seeks orders for the destruction of documents created by the supervision service (order 36). The documents are likely to be relevant evidence and should not be destroyed.
Disclosure
The wife seeks orders that the husband provide her with “unlimited and unrestricted” access to the Xero data files, admin domain and emails as well as admin Microsoft access for V Pty Ltd and any other entity in control of the husband. It is a significant step to provide a party with administrator privileges in a computer system. If the disclosure to date has been inadequate, the wife may seek specific documents or limited classes of documents. The disputes about disclosure and numerous subpoenas in this case have been an enormous burden on the parties and the Court. At this point, I am not persuaded to make further general orders as to disclosure. The wife ought to write to the husband specifying the documents she seeks to have disclosed. If he declines to do so, his solicitors ought to specify the reason, which, if not accepted by the wife, can be the subject of an application to the Court.
In this regard, I note that given the extensive history of disputes between the parties, earlier orders concerning disclosure of sensitive business information for the husband provided for limitations on those who could inspect the documents. The wife argued that as she had no solicitor, that prevented her from preparing her case. However, the wife has a solicitor again and can engage an expert to analyse business records. I am not prepared to make general orders in the extensive form sought by the wife.
There are disputes over whether there are video records relevant to parenting issues. These should be disclosed, together with making the device used to make to recordings available for inspection by an expert to enable their veracity to be confirmed. The wife seeks to place conditions on their production such that they are only produced to the ICL. This would deny the husband procedural fairness.
Similarly, the husband should disclose any recordings that he has made that are relevant to the proceedings. The wife’s request to video record events where the eldest child is present should be refused as it is clearly not in the child’s interests for the parties to record interactions with him for evidence rather than focusing on his needs.
The party receiving the recordings should nominate three experts from which the other party may select one (within 7 days) to inspect the device if so desired. If the party producing the records fails to make a selection in writing within 7 days, the party proposing the list may select one expert from the list.
The husband consents to producing documents he has provided to police.
Wife’s access to V Pty Ltd domain
The wife seeks extensive access rights to the husband’s business site and data at. Unsurprisingly, the husband has serious concerns about granting administration access to this site and data to the wife as it is central to his business. The contents of the wife’s business email ought to have been discovered, along with any other documents relevant to the proceedings. If the wife says the husband has failed to make full disclosure, the appropriate course is that described above.
Shadow expert
The wife seeks orders that she be permitted to obtain a shadow expert opinion. There is nothing to stop her obtaining an opinion of a shadow expert, that is, an expert engaged to review the joint expert’s opinion and provide assistance in the preparation for the case, for example in drafting questions to the joint expert pursuant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and providing a report for leave to call additional expert evidence on the topic covered by the expert.
On the limited material provided, I am not persuaded that the wife has established a proper basis for making orders granting her leave to adduce expert evidence from another expert pursuant to r 7.08 at this stage.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons set out above, I will make orders 2, 2.2, 4–6 and 7 (subject to a change reflecting the requirement of production of the husband’s recordings to the wife and the right to inspect the devices), and 10–12 of the husband’s orders sought. The Application in a Proceeding should otherwise be dismissed.
Whilst the parties are strongly focused on the minutiae of their dispute, it appears to me that the case needs a final hearing where all of the issues can be ventilated rather than the endless stream of interlocutory applications.
I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Riethmuller. Associate:
Dated: 11 March 2025
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
PAC 1553 of 2023 Respondents
Fourth Respondent:
U PTY LTD
Fifth Respondent:
MR BREDA
0
1