Lalani & Lalani (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC1F 232
•9 April 2025
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 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.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RIETHMULLER J:
The parties have been litigating since 2023. The litigation is characterised by numerous interlocutory applications. The parties appear to be unable to cooperate on any level as to the efficient preparation of the matter for trial, despite (in 2024) a trial having been set down for eight days commencing on 5 May 2025.
During the course of the hearing, I raised with the parties the option of providing the expert with access to the electronic accounting system used by the husband (Xero) in an effort to ensure that the relevant material would all be available to the expert. The parties made submissions in this regard.
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]; and
g. [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)
The husband responded seeking orders that:
1.The husband be granted leave to send to [Mr GG] of [HH Group] [the single expert] documents in relation to each of the following:
1.1 [V Pty Ltd];
1.2 [W Pty Ltd];
1.3 [W Unit Trust];
1.4 [FF Pty Ltd];
1.5 [FF Unit Trust];
1.6 [B Pty Ltd];
1.7 [B Trust];
1.8 [C Pty Ltd];
1.9 [C2 Pty Ltd];
1.10 [Lalani Family Trust];
1.11 [BB Pty Ltd];
1.12 [Superannuation Fund 1];
as requested by the single expert provided that the documents and correspondence to the single expert are simultaneously sent to the wife’s lawyer.
2. The wife be granted leave to send to the single expert documents in relation to [JJ Pty Ltd] as requested by the single expert provided that the documents and correspondence to the single expert are simultaneously sent to the husband’s lawyer.
3.Within 14 days of the date of these orders, the wife shall make available to a registered valuer nominated by the husband access to the properties at [1 G Street, Suburb H] and [2 G Street, Suburb H] provided that the husband shall inform the wife’s lawyer of the identity of the registered valuer no less than 24 hours prior to the time and date for inspection of the said properties.
4.The balance of the wife’s application in a proceeding filed 19 March 2025 be dismissed.
5.The wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to this application.
(Response to Application in a Proceeding filed 26 March 2025)
There are two substantive grounds. First, orders in August 2024 for a valuation report and which is unlikely to be completed for the hearing. Secondly, the parenting aspect of the case as family therapy was ordered in November last year with a report by 31 March 2025. The report is not likely to occur. The other orders sought, 2–5 relate to the preparation of the valuer’s report, 6 relates to litigation funding, 9 and 10 relate to the orders about the videos.
The husband’s solicitor made submissions opposing any delay in the final hearing, pointing to the numerous interlocutory events and the alleged strong desire of the husband to finalise the proceedings.
It is convenient to deal with the orders sought by the parties based upon the general topics to which the orders relate.
The valuation issues
A central question in the property proceedings is the value of the parties’ businesses. It appears that the wife’s business has not operated for some time and there is nothing to indicate that it would have had a significant value in any event. The husband, however, has a significant business structured in a complex array of entities, the value of which is the central issue in the property proceedings.
On 24 April 2024, orders were made for valuations of the various entities by a single expert. For reasons that are entirely unexplained by the parties, it took until 28 August 2024 for a joint letter of instruction to be sent to the valuer. The expert responded quickly, on 2 September 2024, sending an engagement agreement and setting out a list of documents he initially required (see p.26 of the wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025), and a number of questions including a request for explanations as to how the business is conducted.
On 14 October 2024, the wife’s solicitors wrote to the husband’s solicitors indicating that the expert’s correspondence appeared “to have been overlooked by both parties”, requesting they prepare a joint letter addressing the expert’s queries, and forward same to the wife’s solicitors for their consideration (see wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025, p.23). The main obligation to prepare a response to the expert was for the husband’s solicitors as the husband’s solicitors had to provide the information sought. The wife also had to provide to the expert the various information sought by him about her business, JJ Pty Ltd (in accordance with Order 15(l) of the Orders made 24 April 2024 requiring it be valued) and sign the engagement agreement for the expert and forward it to the husband’s solicitors at that time.
The wife was then unrepresented from November 2024 to January 2025. During this period, the husband’s solicitors did nothing to progress formalising the expert’s engagement nor providing the relevant documents to the expert. By the time that the wife’s current solicitors were on the record, some nine months had passed since the order, during which time the only practical step taken by the parties to obtain the expert report was sending a joint letter of engagement to the expert on 28 August 2024.
On 13 February 2025, the wife’s current solicitors sent an email to the husband’s solicitors following up this issue seeking the husband’s compliance with the expert’s request for documents on 2 September 2024 (wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025, p.34). This prompted some attention to the valuation issue as the wife signed the engagement agreement for the expert on 21 February 2025 and the husband on 17 February 2025 (wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025, p.46).
On 6 March 2025, the husband’s solicitors sent a proposed response to the expert’s request for information to the wife’s solicitors (wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025, p.52), however, it related to only one entity (V Pty Ltd) and did not include the balance of the information requested by the expert.
Unsurprisingly, the wife’s solicitors found this inadequate, and on 14 March 2025, made a further request to the husband’s solicitors to provide the information requested by the expert. The husband’s solicitor took issue with this request on the basis that the wife proposed a single draft joint letter “[i]n response to [the expert’s] email of 2 September 2024 for all of the above listed entities” (see wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025, p.55). This exchange is emblematic of the approach the parties have taken: the husband could have simply compiled all of the material and provided the draft response and attachments to the wife’s solicitors for agreement before forwarding the material to the expert. Instead, the husband’s solicitors chose to engage in a further dispute with the wife’s solicitors by proposing a letter dealing with only one entity. The husband, in his affidavit on this issue filed 26 March 2025, explains why the documents he proposed to send to the expert only related to V Pty Ltd, saying:
26.The documents which I proposed to be sent to [Mr GG] were not intended to be the totality of documents to be provided to him. Rather, it was my intention to send the documents to enable [Mr GG] to commence the valuation process. He had communicated that he was able to commence working on the valuation report.
27.The letter sought the [wife]’s position on whether the holding companies and trusts were to be valued by [Mr GG]. I caused that enquiry to be made in circumstances where I did not want to incur additional costs in valuing companies and trusts, which did not trade.
The husband annexed to his affidavit a draft letter dated 25 March 2025 (see husband’s affidavit filed 26 March 2025, Annexure G, p.38), to send to the expert as a basis for starting the report. However, that draft letter had not been sent to the wife.
A further example of the overly technical approach by the husband was his opposition to Order 5 of the orders that the wife seeks, on the basis that the wife had issued subpoenas going back ten years and thus arguing that the wife may send all of those documents to the expert which would be oppressive. This was not the intention of the wife’s solicitors, particularly given the timeframe the expert set out in the request for information.
It became clear that the practitioners had not even provided the Court with the courtesy of speaking to each other prior to the matters commencing at 10.00 am in order to identify the real issues between them. I am not aware if this was a result of one or both parties’ instructions or simply discourteous behaviour by one or both solicitors, and have no evidence from which to draw any inference at this point.
It is remarkable that despite the orders in April 2024 for the valuation of all of the entities, the husband’s first steps to provide any information to the expert was only this month, yet his solicitor forcefully expressed the husband’s concerns about the delays and expense of the litigation in submissions before me. It is quite clear that it is the husband’s substantial inaction for nearly a year that has been the primary cause of this delay. Whether that was due to his instructions to his solicitor or a failure of his solicitor to undertake the work is not an issue about which I have any evidence. However, the history of the matter makes clear that his complaints about potential delays are particularly hollow.
At the hearing before me (despite disclosure orders made on 20 May 2024) the parties were unable to state with certainty whether full and frank disclosure between the parties had been completed as the wife’s solicitor did not have the former solicitor’s files, although (unsurprisingly in the context of this litigation) was instructed by wife that full disclosure has not occurred. Importantly, no specific request letters appear to have been sent by the wife seeking further disclosure. Whilst the wife had cartons of records in the home (the subject of earlier interlocutory orders), she says that those documents predated 2022. The husband’s solicitor said the full disclosure had been made and that she had had no further requests for disclosure from the wife, but was not able to immediately put her hand on the variety of letters she would rely upon. Neither party appears to have maintained any ongoing list of the documents disclosed.
At page 44 of wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025, an email from the expert says it will take around 20 business days to complete the valuation report. Thus, even if all of the expert’s questions were fully answered and the documents were sent by mid next week, it would take at least until the end of April 2025 to complete the report. The trial is listed to commence on 5 May 2025. The timeframe leaves no time for any requests by the expert for further information, nor for the parties to review the report prior to the commencement of trial.
Whilst I would have proceeded with the trial had it simply been the wife’s failure to provide the information on the business (and considered whether to draw adverse inferences of the type discussed in Weir and Weir (1992) FLC 92–338), the potentially significant nature of the husband’s businesses are so great that I am not persuaded that such a course should be adopted when the wife presses for the expert report to be completed. As I indicated at the hearing of this application, I conclude that it is not possible to have a fair trial on 5 May 2025. My comments concerning the wife’s failures should not be taken by her as indicating that she does not remain under the usual obligations to make full and frank disclosure of her affairs and to comply with previous orders in this regard.
Parenting issues
On 11 October 2024, the parties were ordered to attend family therapy with Dr O. Orders were made for brief reports every two months as to the progress of the therapy and a final report by 31 March 2025. The wife contacted Dr O’s rooms in October and obtained appointment in November 2024 (wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025 at [28] and [30]). At the hearing, her solicitor initially said that the wife first made contact soon after the orders, but the instructions soon changed to saying that she thought she had to await permission from the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”). The ICL followed up the orders with an email to the parties on 25 October requesting confirmation parties had made appointments (wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025, p.58). The wife says she contacted Dr O’s office in5 November 2024 and was told by Dr O’s staff that there had been no contact by husband at that time. I do not accept the wife’s explanation for her inaction prior to the ICL’s email. Rather, it appears that had the ICL not prompted the parties, they would not have contacted Dr O.
There is no acceptable explanation for the husband taking six to seven weeks to contact Dr O’s office from the date of the Order (11 October 2024) and a month after the ICL sent a prompting email. The husband says he has continued to attend sessions but gives no detail of the sessions.
The wife says she has not had a joint session with the older child at this time (wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025 at [35]). It may take some time as Dr O is still working with the child and advises that a report would be premature (see email from the ICL to the parties’ solicitors dated 12 March 2025, wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025, Annexure C). There is no information as to when a family therapy report may be available.
The ICL has concerns about a lack of certainty for the children. The ICL notes the difficulty of a case where the siblings are separated and the importance of having a report from Dr O by trial. The ICL received an email from Dr O at 9:00 am prior to the interim hearing (28 March 2025) that included some information about therapy going well with the child until a session with the mother was flagged, causing a strong reaction by the child, and confirming that a report would not be available before 5 May 2025.
The child’s best interests demand that the adults responsible for his care make real efforts to address his apparent estrangement from his mother and ensure that the court has evidence as to the likely cause of this estrangement (which is notably absent from the material filed to date). A trial cannot reasonably proceed without a report from Dr O given the issues facing the eldest child.
Litigation Funding Issue
Paragraphs 46–47 of the wife’s affidavit filed 19 March 2025 set out that she has been unable to obtain litigation funding as the funders all seek information as to the husband’s taxation affairs. She annexes correspondence from a funder asking for more information. No copies of her funding applications were provided, nor was her solicitor able to state whether she offered as security a charge and caveat over property in her name (as contemplated by my earlier orders). I am not persuaded on the material before me that the wife is genuinely unable to obtain litigation funding given the significant value of the properties to which she has registered title (in whole or in part). I also note that had the wife not opposed the sale of two properties (such opposition being unsuccessful, as determined in the last judgment) she would likely have already received substantial funds from the sale proceeds.
On the current material, I am not persuaded to make further orders concerning litigation funding.
Valuing the wife’s home
The husband seeks relief in proposed order 3 outlined in his Response filed 26 March 2025 by way of an order permitting him to have an expert inspect the wife’s home as he seeks to obtain a valuation by a valuer he nominates. A request by the husband for such was rejected by the wife (husband’s affidavit filed 26 March 2025 at [40]), although the request did not set out who the proposed valuer would be. There has been a joint expert valuation in September 2024 of her property and a report prepared. The husband questions whether the expert was given access to the third level (an attic) which it is submitted has facilities that can be used as bedroom and kitchenette. The husband says there was an attic room which required a ladder to access. Whilst not in the affidavit material, I am told that questions were sent to the single expert and he took the view that the additional details the husband alleges concerning the attic room would make no difference to the valuation.
I am not persuaded on this material to require the wife to allow another unnamed expert to inspect her home.
Inspection of videos
The wife continues to agitate issues concerning the inspection of mobile phone video recordings of her and the children. She is concerned that the evidence is particularly adverse to her case, and if shown to the children, would be adverse to her relationship with them. On the previous occasion (orders made 11 March 2025), I ordered that the material (as described) should be disclosed – it is “on the cards” (see Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404 at 414) that it would be relevant to the parenting issues. On that occasion, I made orders for disclosure and injunctions to prevent the husband from sharing it with the children or allowing the children to see the material: see Lalani & Lalani [2025] FedCFamC1F 150.
The orders made on the last occasion on this issue are:
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…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.
(Reasons for Judgment delivered 11 March 2025)
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.
I certify that the preceding forty (40) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Riethmuller. Associate:
Dated: 9 April 2025
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
PAC 1553 of 2023 Respondents
Fourth Respondent:
U PTY LTD
Fifth Respondent:
MR BREDA
0
2
0