Lalani & Lalani (No 2)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 232

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Lalani & Lalani (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 232

File number(s): PAC 1553 of 2023
Judgment of: RIETHMULLER J
Date of judgment: 9 April 2025
Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where respondent wife seeks that the allocated trial dates be vacated – Where delays caused by both parties’ failure to provide relevant documents to expert – Delay in obtaining expert valuation report – Relevant and requested documents to be provided to expert – Trial dates vacated awaiting expert valuation report.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Delay in obtaining report from family therapist – Where eldest child is hesitant to attend a joint therapy session with the mother – Where family report will not be available until 5 May 2025 – No matters of principle.

Cases cited:

Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404; [1984] HCA 85

Lalani & Lalani [2025] FedCFamC1F 150

Weir and Weir (1992) FLC 92–338; [1992] FamCA 69

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 40
Date of hearing: 28 March 2025
Place: Parramatta
Solicitor for the Applicant: York Law Family Law Specialists
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Finn Roache Lawyers
Solicitor for the Second, Third and Fifth Respondents: Litigant in person (did not participate)
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Appearance excused

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:

9 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the applicant husband obtain and provide the documents and information requested by Mr GG of HH Group in his email of 2 September 2024, to the wife’s legal representatives at first instance, along with:

(a)proposed joint correspondence;

(b)all bank statements from 1 July 2021 to date for the entities;

(c)all original and amended tax returns and financial statements for the period 30 June 2022, 30 June 2023, 30 June 2024, and if available, 30 June 2025;

(d)access rights to the electronic accounting records for the husband and the various entities on Xero;

(e)a copy of these Orders.

2.That the husband and wife comply with all further requests made by Mr GG in order to complete the business valuations in accordance with Order 18 of the Orders made on 24 April 2024, within 14 days of any request, by providing the material or answers to questions directly to the expert and at the same time serving a copy on the other party.

3.That the wife be granted leave to provide copies of the bank statements produced upon subpoena that relate to the husband or the entities for 1 July 2021 to date to the single expert for the purpose of completing the business valuations in accordance with Order 18 of the Orders made on 24…

Continue reading Lalani & Lalani (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lalani & Lalani (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 232
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lalani & Lalani (No 2), the parties were engaged in a contentious family law dispute encompassing both property and parenting issues. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with managing the proceedings, which involved complex financial and therapeutic evaluations. The wife sought to vacate the allocated trial dates due to delays in obtaining necessary documents and expert reports, primarily stemming from both parties' failure to cooperate effectively in providing requested information to the experts involved.

The legal issues before the court included the necessity of directing the husband to disclose specific financial documents and records, the impact of delays on the availability of expert reports, and the appropriateness of vacating the trial dates. The court also had to consider the wife's request for further restrictions on the disclosure of video recordings and whether such measures were warranted based on the evidence presented.

The court concluded that due to the lack of cooperation between the parties, specific orders were necessary to ensure the timely completion of the expert reports. The court emphasised the importance of providing the requested documents to the experts directly and cautioned against unilateral communication between the parties and the experts. Given the history of non-cooperation, the court decided to vacate the trial dates and set a future review date to assess the progress of the reports. The court noted that further restrictions on the disclosure of video recordings were not justified based on the current evidence. The court ultimately issued detailed orders for the disclosure of financial documents, access to electronic accounting records, and the completion of expert reports, while also discharging certain previous orders and vacating the trial dates pending the availability of the required reports.

Orders

Orders of the court

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:

9 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. That within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the applicant husband obtain and provide the documents and information requested by Mr GG of HH Group in his email of 2 September 2024, to the wife’s legal representatives at first instance, along with:

(a) proposed joint correspondence;

(b) all bank statements from 1 July 2021 to date for the entities;

(c) all original and amended tax returns and financial statements for the period 30 June 2022, 30 June 2023, 30 June 2024, and if available, 30 June 2025;

(d) access rights to the electronic accounting records for the husband and the various entities on Xero;

(e) a copy of these Orders.

2. That the husband and wife comply with all further requests made by Mr GG in order to complete the business valuations in accordance with Order 18 of the Orders made on 24 April 2024, within 14 days of any request, by providing the material or answers to questions directly to the expert and at the same time serving a copy on the other party.

3. That the wife be granted leave to provide copies of the bank statements produced upon subpoena that relate to the husband or the entities for 1 July 2021 to date to the single expert for the purpose of completing the business valuations in accordance with Order 18 of the Orders made on 24 April 2024.

4. That within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the husband provide to the wife’s solicitors copies of completed lodged and amended tax returns and Notices of Assessment for the financial years ended in 30 June 2023 and 30 June 2024 in relation to him personally.

5. That within 7 days of the wife’s solicitors providing a written undertaking not to provide copies of any of the information concerning the husband or the businesses that he operates or is concerned with to any other person (including the wife), the husband provide the wife’s solicitor with access to the Xero accounts with full permissions to read any part of the electronic records.

6. That the orders for mediation and trial directions, being Orders 1 and 5–22 of the Orders made on 18 September 2024, be discharged.

7. That the trial dates listed for 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 May 2025 be vacated.

8. The matter be listed for further mention on 28 May 2025 at 9:45 am.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. The parties are at liberty to request that the matter be re-listed before the Honourable Justice Riethmuller on an urgent basis if required.

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.

Background

Background to the litigation

It is clear that the husband has not disclosed the electronic financial records of the business from Xero as there were still disputes about what protections should be in place to ensure that the wife could not misuse the records (the wife’s current solicitors readily agreeing to give undertakings not to provide copies to the wife so as to enable disclosure to proceed). I am persuaded that it is necessary to make orders to direct disclosure of the husband’s electronic accounting records, despite the apparent agreement at the bar table during the argument.BACKGROUND The parenting dispute concerns the care arrangements of their two sons, the eldest of which lives with the husband and the youngest of which lives with the wife. The youngest child sees the husband regularly, however, the eldest child is presently refusing to see the wife. There were orders in 2024 appointing a family therapist to work with the family concerning the eldest child’s refusal to see the wife. That process only started very late in November 2024 and has not yet progressed to the stage where the child has been seen with the wife, and as a result, the therapist is not yet able to provide a report. The parties are also in dispute with respect to property issues. The parties have significant real estate assets and there is a large number of business entities primarily operated by the husband. Whilst the real properties have been valued, the valuation of the business entities (which was ordered in April 2024) has not yet been carried out, primarily as a result of the failure of the parties to appoint the valuer in a timely fashion, and the ongoing failure of the parties to provide the valuer with the information he has requested. On 6 November 2024, the wife’s solicitors ceased acting on her behalf. There are outstanding fees owing to them. The wife current solicitors filed a Notice of Address for Service on 22 January 2025. On 20 March 2025, the wife filed an Application in a Proceeding, relying upon her affidavit of 19 March 2025. Eleven orders are sought, although principally she sought the vacation of the trial date in May:1. That the Application in a Proceeding be heard on short notice and urgently.2. That within seven (7) days the Applicant Husband (Husband) obtain and provide the documents and information requested by [Mr GG] of [HH Group] in his email of 2 September 2024, to the Wife’s legal representatives at first instance, along with proposed joint correspondence, and comply with all further requests made by [Mr GG] in order to complete the business valuations as ordered by order 18 of the Orders made on 24 April 2024.3.That within seven (7) days the Husband provide copies of all bank statements from 1 July 2021 to date, to [Mr GG] of [HH Group] for the purpose of completing the business valuations in respect of the following entities;a. [FF Unit Trust];b. [B Trust];c. [Lalani Family Trust]; and d. [Superannuation Fund 1].4.That within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders, the Husband provide copies of all original and amended tax returns and financial statements for the period 30 June 2022, 30 June 2023, 30 June 2024 and if available 30 June 2025 to [Mr GG] of [HH Group], for the purposes of undertaking the business valuations, in respect of the following entities:a. [V Pty Ltd];b. [W Pty Ltd];c. [FF Pty Ltd];d. [FF Unit Trust;e. [B Pty Ltd];f. [B Trust];g. [C Pty Ltd];h. [C2 Pty Ltd];i. [Lalani Family Trust];j. [BB Pty Ltd]; and k. [Superannuation Fund 1]5.That the Respondent Wife (Wife) be granted leave to provide copies of the Bank Statements produced upon subpoenas issued to Commonwealth Bank of Australia on 19 February 2025, National Australia Bank on 19 February 2025, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited on 21 February 2025 and Westpac Banking Corporation on 21 February 2025 in respect of the companies listed below to [Mr GG] of [HH Group] for the purpose of completing the business valuations as ordered by order 18 of the Orders made on 24 April 2024:a. [V Pty Ltd];b. [W Pty Ltd];c. [FF Pty Ltd];d. [B Pty Ltd];e. [C Pty Ltd];f. [C2 Pty Ltd]; andg. [BB Pty Ltd].6.That within seven (7) days the Husband, provide to the Wife’s solicitors, copies of completed lodged and amended tax returns and Notices of Assessment for the financial years ended in 2023 and 2024 in relation to him personally.7.That the orders made on 18 September 2024 and amended on 24 October 2024 be discharged.8.That the trial dates listed for 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 May 2025 be vacated.9.That orders 6 and 7 of the orders made on 11 March 2025 be stayed.10.That orders 6 and 7 of the orders made on 11 March 2025 be discharged.11.That the Wife’s Costs of, and incidental to this Application be paid by the Husband.(Application in a Proceeding filed 20 March 2025, emphasis in the original)

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The wife now seeks to further restrict the disclosure, this time to the ICL together with an injunction against communicating to the children even the existence of the recordings. There is nothing in her present affidavit to show that there is a risk that the father will not comply with the current orders concerning the video recordings. Whilst there are allegations that the wife had previously read sections of a family report to the children, there are no such allegations of similar conduct by the father. On the material currently before the Court, I am not persuaded that further restrictions, beyond the injunctions, are required.CONCLUSIONS I am persuaded that due to the inability of the parties to cooperate, there is a need for orders to progress the preparation of the single expert report (business valuations) that are largely in accordance with those sought by the wife, although it seems to me that 14 days is more realistic than 7 days (even though the solicitor for the husband says she is now in position to provide the answers and documents sought by the expert). I am not persuaded to permit the parties to unilaterally send material to the single expert due to my concerns that they may send overwhelming volumes of material. The material should be as requested by the expert. If, as the wife alleges, there is evidence of the husband deferring income into subsequent financial years that the wife seeks to agitate as an issue with the single expert, she may seek permission from the husband’s solicitors, and failing that, make an application to the Court for leave to provide further material to the expert, if necessary. As I have no confidence that the parties will be able to cooperate sufficiently to enable the valuation expert and the family therapist to conduct their work, I am unprepared to leave the trial directions in place and to set another trial date until such time as the relevant reports are available. Whilst I generally seek to minimise court events in cases (so as to minimise costs to the parties), in this matter I can have no confidence that even the most basic tasks will be undertaken without constant supervision from the Court. I will therefore list the matter for a further mention on 28 May 2025 for review and note that the parties are at liberty to request that the matter be re-listed before me on an urgent basis if required.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.