Liatos and Liatos - [2007] FamCA 945

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LIATOS & LIATOS

[2007] FamCA 945

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Injunctions

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Mullen and De Bry (2006) FLC 93-293
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 at 407
Patrick Stevedores v MUA [1998] 195 CLR 1 at 24
Mareva Compania Naveriera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA (The Mareva) [1980] 1 All ER 213
Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380
Waugh and Waugh (2000) FLC 93-052
Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679
Hickey and Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143

APPLICANT:

Mrs Liatos

RESPONDENT:

Mr Liatos

SECOND RESPONDENT:

J Capital Ltd

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

579

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

28 August 2007

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

O'Ryan J

HEARING DATE:

9, 17, 24 and 27 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Lethbridge SC with Mr W Lloyd

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Prosilis Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Richardson SC with Mr Richards

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Fritchley Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr J Lloyd

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

Newnhams Solicitors

Orders

The Husband in his capacity as the sole director of Liatos Group Pty Limited as trustee for the A Property Trust on completion of the sale of the property situate at and known as the A property in Brisbane execute all documents and writings and do all acts and things necessary to cause the proceeds of sale to be paid in the following priority:
1.1in payment of any agents commission;
1.2in payment of the conveyancing costs and disbursements;
1.3in payment of the amount to discharge the mortgage to Suncorp Ltd;
1.4in payment of any statutory charges including any possible GST paid in addition to the purchase price;
1.5in payment of the balance to an interest bearing controlled monies account in the joint names of the solicitors for the Husband and the Wife.
Pending the hearing of the applications for a final property order each of the Husband and the Wife including the Husband in the capacity as the sole director of Liatos Group Pty Limited as trustee for the A Property Trust be restrained from assigning, transferring, encumbering by mortgage or charge or otherwise or in any way dealing with the amount in the controlled monies account referred to in Order 1.5 hereof.
Upon compliance with Order 1.5 hereof Orders 2.2 and 2.3 made on 2 August 2007 in relation to restraining the Husband from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia be discharged.
The Wife file within 48 hours an undertaking as to damages and that such undertaking be extended to J Capital Limited.
Liberty to all parties to apply in relation to these orders on giving written notice to the Court and all parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

Until further order, Order 3 made on 28 August 2007 be stayed.
The Wife file and serve by 4.00 pm on Friday 31 August 2007 an application for a stay of execution of Order 3 made on 28 August 2007 together with any affidavit material in support.
The matter be listed for mention or hearing before me at 9.30 am on Thursday 6 September 2007.
The application for property settlement be listed for mention before me for case management purposes at 9.30 am on 6 September 2007 and that as far as possible each of the Husband and the Wife have available a minute of the orders which they seek in relation to the future conduct of those proceedings.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice O’Ryan delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Liatos & Liatos.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 579 of 2007

Mrs Liatos

Wife

And

Mr Liatos

Husband

And

J Capital Ltd

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Before me for hearing are applications for injunctions. The Applicant is the Wife. The First Respondent is the Husband. The Second Respondent is J Capital Ltd which is a company incorporated overseas.
There are pending proceedings for settlement of property between the Husband and the Wife which were commenced by application filed by the Husband on 30 January 2007.
The Wife’s occupation is home duties and the Husband is a businessman.
On 26 July 2007 an application in a case was filed on behalf of the Wife in which she sought the following:
1.      That this matter be heard on an urgent ex-parte basis as soon as possible or within 24 hours of the 26^th July 2007.
2.      That the wife […] be appointed as the Trustee for the sale of the property situated at and known as [the A property], scheduled for completion of sale on the 7 August 2007 in Queensland, and that upon completion of such sale that the wife deposit the monies received from such sale into an interest bearing account in the names of both the husband and the wife to be held on trust pending the final determination of the property proceedings between the parties presently before this honourable court and that the wife shall direct her solicitor Mr Ovid Prosilis of … to undertake such deposits.
3.      That the wife as trustee for the sale of the property aforementioned in paragraph 2 herein direct that the mortgage monies of about $2,407,035.00 owing to [J Capital Limited] be deposited into a interest bearing account to be held in trust in the names of both the husband and the wife and [J Capital Limited] pending the final determination of the property proceedings, and that the wife shall direct her solicitor Ovid Prosilis to undertake such deposit.
4.      That the wife do all things and sign all documents required to ensure that the mortgage owing to Suncorp Metway in the amount of $2,215,376.00 be paid to Suncorp Metway at completion of the aforesaid sale.
5.      That the husband, […], in his capacity as a sole director of the [Liatos] Group Pty Ltd in its capacity as the Trustee of the [A] Property Trust not do any act or thing or cause any action to be undertaken that would have the effect of preventing the sale of the [A] property to be completed.
6.      That the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to this application.
7.      That the wife cause to be sent to Gadens Solicitors of … a copy of these Orders forthwith.
8.      That the wife cause to be sent to the solicitors representing the husband being Fritchley solicitors at … a copy of these orders forthwith.
9.      Any other order this Honourable Court deems fit.
On 31 July 2007 an application in a case was filed on behalf of the Wife in which she sought the following:
1.      That this matter be heard on an urgent ex-parte basis as soon as possible or within 24 hours of 31^st July 2007.
2.      That an order for service be made so that copies of these orders, the application made this day and the affidavit of [the wife] sworn 30 July 2007 be served either on the said [husband] as soon as possible or upon his solicitor Mr Edwin Fritchley of ….
3.      That until further order of the Family Court of Australia, the husband, […], be and is hereby restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia.
4.      That subject to paragraph 3 herein, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police take all necessary steps to immediately place the name/s of the husband:
(a)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(b)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(c)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(d)[…] born […] 1969 aka
(e)[…] born […] 1969 aka
(f)[…] born […] 1969;
on the airport watch list also known as the P.A.S.S. system, at all ports of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia.
5.      That subject to paragraph 3 herein, the Australian Federal Police maintain an airport watch of the said husband on all flights leaving any international airport in all States and Territories in the Commonwealth of Australia.
6.      That subject to paragraph 3 herein, the Australian Federal Police and the Police Forces of the States and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia assist in the implementation of and give effect to those Orders AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Marshal of the Court and all agents of the Australian Federal Police and all Police Forces and services of various States and Territories of Australia are required and empowered to give effect to these Orders to take all necessary steps to restrain the husband from leaving, or his servants or his agents from attempting to remove the said husband from the Commonwealth of Australia.
7.      That forthwith upon service of this order upon the husband, the husband deliver and deposit and leave it/them deposited, any passport/s in the husband’s possession or power issued to him by both the Australian Government and the Greek Government to the Registrar of the Sydney Registry of the Family Court of Australia to be held by the said Registrar pending further order of the Family Court of Australia.
8.      That until further order the husband be and is hereby restrained from applying to the Australian Government for or obtaining further passport/s in the name/s of:
(i)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(ii)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(iii)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(iv)[…] born […] 1969 aka
(v)[…] born […] 1969 aka
(vi)[…] born […] 1969;
without a further order of the Family Court of Australia.
9.      That until further order the husband be and is hereby restrained from applying to the Greek Government for or obtaining further passport/s in the name/s of:
(i)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(ii)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(iii)[…] born […] 1969, aka
(iv)[…] born […] 1969 aka
(v)[…] born […] 1969 aka
(vi)[…] born […] 1969;
without a further order of the Family Court of Australia.
10.     That forthwith, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [“the department”] is to be given notice of this order by the wife forthwith and the Department is requested to assist and ensuring that the said [husband] does not breach the injunctions herein granted.
11.     That the husband pay the wife’s cost of and incidental to this application.
12.     Any other Order this Honourable Court deems fit.
Orders were made by Judicial Registrar Loughnan on 26 July 2007 and 2 August 2007 and by Steele J on 31 July 2007. The Husband and the Second Respondent seek that the applications be dismissed and the orders made on 26 and 31 July 2007 and 2 August 2007 be discharged.
On 9 August 2007 a Response was filed on behalf of the Husband and he seeks the following orders:
1.      That the husband do all acts and things necessary to cause [Liatos] Group Pty Limited as Trustee for the [Liatos A] Property Trust to complete the contract for sale of the property situate at and known as [the A Property] on 21 August 2007 or the earliest date otherwise available pursuant to the existing contract for sale.
2.      That the husband shall do all acts and things necessary to cause the proceeds of sale of the [A] property to be paid and applied as follows:-
(a)In payment of agents commission and legal fees on sale;
(b)In payment of such sum as is necessary to discharge the existing mortgage to Suncorp Metway;
(c)In payment of any GST or any other Commonwealth Tax Liability due on the sale;
(d)In payment to [J Capital Ltd] the sum of $2,384,029.07 together with any additional interest accrued to the date of settlement;
(e)As to the balance to be paid into and retained by Gadens Lawyers in an interest bearing controlled money account (“the trust account”) for [the Liatos A Property Trust] pending further order of the Court or consent by the parties in writing, subject to any order made pursuant to paragraph 7 below.
3.      That the interim applications of the wife filed on each of 26 and 31 July 2007 be dismissed.
4.      That pending further order the Wife be restrained from doing any act or thing to transfer, dispose of or further encumber her interest in the property situate at and known as [the V property] being the property comprised in Certificate of Title folio identifier ….
5.      That within 48 hours the wife deliver to the husband, at the offices of his solicitors, all documents being documents being documents relating to the following entities:-
(a)The [Liatos] Group Pty Limited
(b)The [Liatos A] Property Trust
(c)The [B] Property Trust
(d)The [Liatos Group Facilities] Trust
(e)[Liatos Seaside] Pty Limited
(f)[Liatos Administration] Pty Limited
(g)The [P] Pty Limited
(h)The [Liatos] Group Property Trust
(i)The [C] Property Trust
(j)The [D] Property Trust
(k)The company [OO] Pty Limited trading as [the franchise in L]
(l)All of the documents delivered by the Husband to the wife in April 2007
6.      That the Wife pay to the Husband from monies held by the wife in the ANZ bank account, or otherwise, the following amounts:
a.The sum of $1,700.00 per week, first payment in 7 days and weekly thereafter;
b.The sum of $13,300.00 forthwith;
c.The sum of $22,601.40 for payment to [W] accountants;
d.The sum of $70,000.00 within 7 days
7.      In the alternative to order 7 above (but only in the event that it is refused), each of the parties do all acts and things including giving written instructions necessary to cause the husband to be paid form the trust account the amounts referred to in order 6 above.
8.      That the wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to the applications of each 26 and 31 July 2007 and the husband’s response thereto.
On 9 August 2007 a response was filed on behalf the Second Respondent seeking the following orders:
1.      That the husband and wife do all acts and things and execute all documents, instruments and writings necessary to cause [Liatos] Group Pty Limited as Trustee for the [Liatos A] Property Trust to repay all funds payable to [J Capital Limited] pursuant to the Mezzanine Debt Finance Agreement dated 28 April 2003 and accepted 8 May 2003 and Mezzanine Debt Finance Agreement dated 23 March 2004 and accepted on 2 April 2004 upon completion of the sale of [the A property], Queensland.
2.      Damages.
3.      That the husband and/or the wife pay the costs of [J Capital Limited] in relation to this application.
On 30 January 2007 an application for final orders was filed on behalf of the Husband. In this application he seeks the following:
PROPERTY DECLARATIONS
1.      That the Husband be entitled to his right title and interest in the following properties:-
(a)The property situate at and known as “[X]” in […] Greece
(b)The property situate at [Y] Greece
(c)The property situate at [Z] Greece
PROPERTY ORDERS
2.      That the Wife forthwith do all things and acts as are necessary to cause [the V Property] to be placed on the market for sale by way of private treaty and to thereafter convey the said matrimonial home to any bona fide purchaser for the best price reasonably obtainable.
3.      Upon completion of the sale of the matrimonial home the parties give all instructions and do all things necessary to cause the proceeds of sale to be distributed in the following manner and priority:-
(a)In payment of all Agent’s commission and legal fees;
(b)In payment of all water and Council rates;
(c)In payment to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in respect of the loan together with interest thereon secured over the [V] property.
(d)In payment of the balance to the wife as to 65%
(e)In payment to the husband the remainder.
4.      In the event of there being any dispute between the husband and wife as to the appointment of an Agent, sale price or any other mechanical or procedural matter required to effect the provision of Order 1 above the parties shall jointly instruct the President of the Real Estate Institute of NSW to nominate an Agent for sale and to specify the sale price and to deal with and cause completion of the processes required to achieve the result in Order 3.
5.      That the husband, in his capacity as sole director of [Liatos] Group Pty Limited (“the trustee company”) do all acts and things necessary to forthwith cause the sale of [the A Property] to be placed on the market for sale by way of private treaty and to thereafter convey the said [A] Property to any bona fide purchaser for the best price reasonably obtainable.
6.      Upon completion of the sale of the [A] Property the Husband give all instructions and do all things necessary to cause the proceeds of sale to be distributed in the following manner and priority:-
(a)In payment of all Agent’s commission and legal fees;
(b)In payment of all water and Council rates;
(c)In payment of monies to Suncorp Metway in respect of the loan (including any interest and penalties) secured over the [A] Property.
(d)In payment to [J Capital Limited] Principal sum together with interest thereon
(e)In payment of any taxation liabilities including but not limited to Capital Gains Tax liabilities.
(f)In payment of the balance to the wife.
7.      That the Wife do all acts and things and execute all documents necessary so as to transfer to the Husband her right title and interest in the [B] Property Trust.
8.      That the Wife transfer to the Husband her right title and interest in the company known as [Liatos Finance Limited].
9.      That the Wife do all acts and things and execute all documents necessary so as to transfer to the Husband her right title and interest in the [Liatos] Family Trust
10.     That within 28 days of the date of the orders herein the Wife deliver to the Husband the following items:
(a)The Bang & Olufsen 6 stack stereo player and speakers
(b)One half share of the family photographs
(c)The Husband’s books
11.     Other than as provided for herein the Wife be entitled to all items of furniture, furnishings, Objet D’Art shares, bank accounts in her name, credit, possession or control.
12. That in accordance with F90MT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975, whenever a splitable payment becomes payable from [Liatos] Superannuation fund, the Trustee shall pay to [the wife] or her executors, administrators, beneficiaries, heirs or assigns, the entitlement calculated in accordance with part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) regulations 2001 the sum of 50% in the said fund and make a corresponding reduction in the entitlement [the husband] would have had in the [Liatos] Superannuation Fund, but for these orders.
13.     The operative time for Order number 12 herein shall be four working days after service of the sealed orders on the Trustee.
PARENTING ORDERS
14.     That the children of the marriage [the elder daughter] born […] March 1996 and [the younger daughter] born […] August 2000 (“the children”) live with the wife.
15.     That the wife be responsible for the day to day care, welfare and development of the children whilst in her care and the husband be responsible for the day to day care welfare and development of the children whilst in his care.
16.     That the parties be jointly responsible for the long term care, welfare and development of the children
17.     That the children spend time with the Husband as follows:-
(a)From 6.00pm on Friday to 6.00pm Sunday each alternate week.
(b)From after school each Tuesday to 9.00am on Wednesday during the school term
(c)From after school each Thursday to 9.00am on Friday during the school term
(d)For one half of the school holidays each year such period to be in the first remaining half in even years and in the second half in odd years.
(e)In even years from noon Christmas Eve to 2.00 pm Christmas Day and on odd numbered years from 2.00 pm Christmas Day to 2.00 pm Boxing Day.
(f)In odd numbered years from noon New Years Eve to 2.00 pm New Years Day and in even numbered years from 2.00 pm New Years Day to 2.00 pm on 2^nd January
(g)In the event that the children’s birthdays fall on a day when the children are not with the husband in accordance with these orders for a period of 3 hours. In the event that the children live with the wife, on the children’s birthday in accordance with these orders, the wife shall return the children to the husband for a period of 3 hours and failing agreement from 4.00 pm to 7.00 pm.
(h)On Fathers Day from 6.00 pm the day before Fathers Day to 6.00 pm on Fathers Day. In the event that Fathers Day falls on a day when the child is with the wife in accordance with these orders then the wife shall return the children to the husband for the period 6.00 pm the day before Fathers Day to 6.00 pm on Fathers Day.
(i)By telephone on 5 days per week and that the wife shall facilitate such contact. If the children are not available the wife shall require the children to telephone the husband the same time the next evening.
(j)At such other times as the parties may be agreed upon in writing between the parties.
18.     For the purpose of determining “one half” referred to in 14 (b) above the midpoint shall be 6.00 pm on the day which is closet to the exact mid point having regard to the commencement of the holidays as being 3.00 pm on the last day of school.
19.     That the periods referred to in 17 (a) above, be suspended during school holidays, meaning that the alternate week periods do not restart at the commencement of school term, but rather fall where they do on the calendar.
20.     In circumstances where the father’s contact seizes upon the children returning to school, the father shall ensure that all the children’s school uniforms and school equipment are returned with the children.
21.     Both parties be restrained from denigrating each other.
22.     That the wife provide the husband with a copy of any information she receives regarding the children’s school events and activities as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving such information.

On 20 July 2007 a response to an application for final orders was filed on behalf of the Wife and she seeks the following:
1.      That the property of the husband and wife or either of them be divided as to 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband.
2.      That the children of the marriage being:
(a)[the elder daughter] born […]/March/1996; and
(b)[the younger daughter] born […]/August/2000,
[“the children”], live with the wife;
3.      That the wife have sole parental responsibility for the long term care, welfare and development of the children.
4.      That the husband and wife have sole parental responsibility for the day to day care, welfare and development of the children when the children are in the respective care of either of the husband or the wife.
5.      That the husband spend time with the children as agreed between the husband and the wife.
6.      That leave be granted to amend these orders sought within this Response following a full and proper disclosure of the husband’s financial position.
7.      That the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.
8.      Any other order that this Honourable Court deems fit.
The Wife was born in March 1962 in Greece and the Husband was born in March 1969 in Australia. At some point the Husband may have been known by another name. The parties were married in August 1988 and separated in about April 2006. There are two children of the marriage, an elder daughter born in March 1996 and a younger daughter born in August 2000. The children reside with the Wife.
The Wife contends that the Husband is the biological son of Mr D H who is now deceased and that the Husband has a half brother, Mr P H and a half sister, S H. The Wife contends that both the Husband and P H are sons of D H, but from different mothers. This is denied by the Husband who contends that D H was not his biological father and P H is not his half brother. The Husband contends that he never said anything to the Wife to suggest that P H is his half brother. P H said that D H was the Husband’s godfather and “christened him”. P H is ordinarily a resident of Greece.
In the property settlement proceedings there is a significant issue as to the extent and value of the net assets of the parties.
The Wife contends that the Husband has failed to make a full and frank disclosure of the parties financial circumstances despite her repeated requests for disclosure and that the Husband has significant interests overseas. The Wife contends that during the marriage the Husband hid transactions from her and did so in circumstances where he failed to advise, consult, request or deliberate with her on his decisions either prior to taking such actions or after he made these decisions. The Wife contends that the Husband never discussed with her the use of company or trust finances or the use of finances that are secured by her share of the matrimonial assets for the purpose of transferring these funds overseas or to overseas accounts or to any of several countries.
The Husband contends that he has made a full and frank of the parties’ financial circumstances and that he has no assets located overseas. I assume that the Husband, consistent with what he has stated in tax returns, contends that he:
·Has never had a direct or indirect interest in a foreign company
·Has never either directly or indirectly caused the transfer of property including money or services to a non resident trust
·Has never had an interest in a foreign investment fund
·Has never had any foreign source of income and foreign assets or property
·Has never had an interest in assets located outside Australia except for three properties in Greece which he has disclosed.
The Husband contends that various overseas assets the Wife contends the Husband may have an interest in are the assets of P H and previously the assets of D H. The Husband contends that D H who is now deceased was his godfather, mentor, business associate and an extremely good friend. D H may have been born in August 1937. The Husband contends that he never suggested to the Wife that D H was his biological father. The Husband and the Wife are related by blood. The Husband contends that they have known each other since June 1984 when the Husband was 15 years old and the Wife was 22 years old. The Husband contends that since that time he has made the Wife fully aware that D H and he had a close personal relationship in matters that were social and financial. The Husband stated that he trusted D H implicitly. The Husband contends that D H gave him a considerable amount of advice relating to financial matters and he always held D H in high regard. The Husband deposed that he is aware that during his life time D H held the Husband in high regard. The Husband deposed that he has a similar relationship with P H and he is considered to be a close friend of P H whom the Husband is happy to deal with in business and socially. P H said that he and his late father have been business associates of the Husband for many years and family friends.
The Wife is fearful that in the event the sale of A property was completed then funds that ought properly form part of the assets of the matrimonial pool will disappear into overseas bank accounts controlled by the Husband and P H. Contracts for the sale of the A property for a price of $5,500,000 were exchanged on 7 May 2007 and settlement was to occur on 7 August 2007. The Husband contends that on settlement an amount of $2,215,376 is to be paid to Suncorp Metway Ltd in discharge of a mortgage and $2,407,935 to the Second Respondent in repayment of a loan. This would leave about $876,689 subject to payment of sale expenses such as agents commission and legal fees for the conveyance. The Wife’s concerns relate to the amount to be paid to the Second Respondent and the balance of the proceeds of sale after payment of costs.
The Wife contends that the Husband has stated that he proposes to reside overseas and has spent significant periods out of Australia. The Wife contends that she is fearful her case for property settlement will be prejudiced, especially in circumstances where the Family Court will have no jurisdiction to grant her relief in respect of orders or enforcement proceedings against persons or entities who are not present in the jurisdiction.
The Husband contends that he seeks to live and work out of Australia. He deposed that he is concerned as to the legal costs that are escalating in this matter. He contends that as a result of the injunction restraining him leaving Australia he does not have sufficient funds to live on or conduct his legal representation in the proceedings.
In summary the Wife contends that there are very extensive and valuable assets located overseas. However the Husband contends that he has no interest in any of the assets and that they are owned by P H through a structure of various companies and trusts resident in various countries. The Wife contends that these asset are owned by the Husband and or that he has a significant interest in such assets. The Wife’s contentions include that:
·The Husband has transferred overseas during at least two periods being from 1990 to at least the end of August 1996 and from 2001 to 2004, not less than $7,939,345.21 of which he was the beneficial owner;
·The Second Respondent is a corporation which is the alter ego of the Husband; and
·In order to facilitate the transfer of funds the Husband executed documents by signing the Wife’s name as a signatory without her knowledge.

Disclosed financial circumstances

The Wife swore a financial statement on 20 July 2007. The Wife contends that her weekly income is not known. The Wife contends that she is unaware as to what instructions the Husband has given to the accountants as to the Wife’s employment status or the source of any income for income tax purposes.
The Wife contends that she has total personal expenditure of an estimated $8,783 per week being:
$
·Mortgage  4,500.00
·Rates  35.00
·Motor vehicle insurance  41.50
·Other expenditure  4,207.00
The Wife provided a break up of how the amount of $4,207 is calculated and it included amounts paid for the education and support of the children.
As to her property interests the Wife disclosed:
$
·The V Property  5,500,000.00
·ANZ Bank account  182,709.36
·Motor vehicle  90,000.00
·Household contends  35,000.00
·Jewellery and clothes  10,000.00
As to liabilities the Wife disclosed a mortgage debt of $2,900,000. The Wife is presently paying mortgage payments of about $18,500 per month to the Commonwealth Bank pursuant to interim orders made on 13 March 2007.
In his financial statement of 23 February 2007 the Husband contended that he has a weekly income of $1,115 being benefits from employment which comprise accommodation of $775 and use of a motor vehicle of $340. He disclosed personal expenditure of $1,410 being mortgage payments of $775, motor vehicle registration of $340 and credit card payments of $295. The Husband contended that the parties live off loans from the Liatos Group Facilities Trust and in the year ended 30 June 2005 they received $93,890.39.
In relation to his property interests the Husband contended that he has property of a value of $1,468,404 which comprises:
$
·Land at X, Greece  1,000,000
·Land at Y, Greece  300,000
·Land at Z, Greece  100,000
·Commonwealth Bank account   63,404
·Two shares in Liatos Group Pty Ltd  -
·Clothes, jewellery         5,000
$1,468,404
As to his liabilities the Husband contended that he has no liabilities.
The Husband did disclose as a financial resource a number of trusts being the Liatos Group Facilities Trust, the Liatos Family Trust, the Liatos B Property Trust, the Liatos Finance Trust and the Liatos A Property Trust. However as to his interest in the trusts he said that the value was not known. The Husband gave no evidence about the value of the net assets of the trusts.
The Husband contends that Liatos Group Pty Ltd is a trustee company. It is a trustee of the B Property Trust which is a unit trust. The B Property Trust owns a property at R which the Husband contends has a value of approximately $2,300,000.
The Husband contends Liatos Group Pty Ltd is also the trustee of the Liatos A Property Trust. The Liatos A Property Trust owns the A Property in Brisbane which has been sold.
The Husband contends that Liatos Group Pty Ltd is also the trustee of the Liatos Family Trust which is a discretionary trust of which the Husband is a potential beneficiary. The Liatos Family Trust has shares in the B Property Trust and the Liatos A Property Trust.
The Husband contends that he has an interest in the Liatos Superannuation Fund of a gross value of $76,241.
Then in an affidavit of 7 August 2007 the Husband deposed that he anticipates his expenses on a weekly basis whilst residing in Australia are as follows:-
$
·Estimated rent in the Eastern Suburbs   775.00
·Motor vehicle per week   245.00
·Petrol   80.00
·Electricity, gas,   40.00
·Food  300.00
·Clothing   200.00
·Telephone        60.00
Total   $1,700.00
He contends that he requires a one off payment for the following:
·Bond (4 weeks)   $ 3,100.00
·Purchase of white goods to furnish flat   $10,000.00
The Husband also said that the parties have the following assets and liabilities:
Assets  $
·Land at X, Greece  1,400,000.00
·Land at Y, Greece  400,000.00
·House at Z, Greece  100,000.00
·B Property Trust, B Property,  4,000,000.00
·Liatos A Property Trust   5,550,000.00
§V Property    6,500,000.00
Total17,950,000.00
Liabilities
·Mortgage to National Bank of Greece     400,000.00
·Mortgage to National Bank of Greece       160,000.00
·Mortgage to Commonwealth Bank, V Property  2,900,000.00
·Mortgage to Suncorp, A Property  2,265,000.00
·Loan from J Capital Ltd, A Property  2,380,000.00
·Mortgage to Commonwealth Bank, B Property   1,350,000.00
·Investors, B Property  565,000.00
·J Capital Ltd       300,000.00

Total($10,320,000.00)
Net property $ 7,630,000.00

The Husband also contends that he has accountancy expenses in relation to monies owed to W personal accounting as well as the Liatos Group accounting services: Amount owed $22,601.40.

As I understand the application of the Husband for property settlement the outcome he seeks would have the following effect. The Husband would receive:
$
·Land at X, Greece  1,400,000.00
·Land at Y, Greece  400,000.00
·House at Z, Greece  100,000.00
·B Property Trust, B Property,  4,000,000.00
§V Property ($3,600,000)  1,260,000.00
Total7,160,000.00
Liabilities
·Mortgage to National Bank of Greece     400,000.00
·Mortgage to National Bank of Greece       160,000.00
·Mortgage to Commonwealth Bank, B Property   1,350,000.00
·Investors, B Property  565,000.00
·J Capital Ltd     300,000.00
Total($2,775,000.00)
Net $4,385,000.00
The Wife would receive 42.53 per cent of what the Husband contends are the net assets being:
$
·Net proceeds of Liatos A Property Trust   905,000.00
§65% of the V Property ($3,600,000)   2,340,000.00
Net  $3,245,000.00
If any amounts owing to J Capital Ltd are excluded then I assume that the Husband contends that the parties have the following assets in Australia:
Assets  $
·B Property Trust, B Property  4,000,000.00
·Liatos A Property Trust   5,550,000.00
§The V Property     6,500,000.00
Total16,050,000.00
Liabilities
·Mortgage to Commonwealth Bank, V Property  2,900,000.00
·Mortgage to Suncorp, A Property  2,265,000.00
·Mortgage to Commonwealth Bank, B Property   1,350,000.00
·Investors, B Property     565,000.00
Total($7,080,000.00)
Net property  $ 8,970,000.00

Background

The amount of evidence I had before me was very significant and it took me some time to read and consider all of what I was asked to look at. On 24 August 2007 the Wife made an application to adduce further evidence and on 27 July 2007 I heard and determined the application. I allowed the Wife to put into evidence an affidavit sworn by her solicitor Ovid Prosilis. I also allowed the Husband to put further evidence before me and for the Wife to be briefly cross examined.
The hearing otherwise proceeded in a truncated way in that subject to brief cross-examination of the Wife on 27 August 2007 there was no cross examination of either party. There are significant issues in relation to the extent and value of the assets of the parties and these issues will require further investigation and evidence. However at this stage I am unable to resolve such issues and of course am unable to express any views about the outcome of the property applications. There may be a considerable amount of evidence yet to be filed by all parties to support their respective contentions. What I will hereafter set out appears from the written material and I accept that there may be objection at the final hearing to some of the material; that my understanding of what is in the material may be in error or that there may be an explanation or evidence in reply. The Husband contends that he will require more time to deal with the evidence of the Wife.
In the documents there are various persons identified and the spelling of the name of some persons may change from time to time. I have tried to use the name as it appears in the document I read.
There is a company called M Fiduciary Services Ltd which is located in the Channel Islands. I have seen where it may sometimes be described as M Trust Company Ltd. I will refer to is as M Fiduciary Services.
There are various companies called S Trust Singapore Pte Ltd, S Trust Samoa Ltd and S Trust Hong Kong Ltd. I will refer to these companies as S Trust.
On 17 August 2007 various documents were produced by Antunes Lawyers and Advocates in answer to a subpoena. I will refer to this firm as Antunes Lawyers. A principal of this firm is Ms M Antunes who I will refer to as Ms Antunes.
In the evidence there is reference to the Laiki Bank which may be owned by The Cyprus Popular Bank Ltd.
P H said that D H was a businessman in Melbourne for 30 years.
P H said that in 1980 his family emigrated back to Greece “although much of our wealth remained in Australia”.
The Wife contends that in about 1990 the parties purchased a Franchise in L.
In February 1990 O Pty Ltd was incorporated in New South Wales.
On 8 March 1990 D H acquired one share in O Pty Ltd.
On 8 March 1990 the Husband and D H may have been appointed directors of O Pty Ltd.
On 13 March 1990 O Pty Ltd changed its name to OO Pty Ltd.
I assume that in 1990 OO Pty Ltd acquired the franchise in L.
The Husband contends that at the time he and the Wife had a conversation and the Husband said “The partners in the [franchise] business want to sell the business and we might be able to buy it”. The Wife said “That would be nice if we could”. The Husband said “Do you think your parents could assist in it”. The Wife said “We should try them”. The Husband and the Wife then tried to obtain assistance from the Wife’s parents however they did not wish to assist the parties in the purchase. Shortly after ascertaining that the Wife’s parents were not interested the Husband said to the Wife: “I have spoken to [D H] and he has informed me that he is willing to assist us in the purchase. He will provide all the capital to purchase the business and for that he will obtain a 50 per cent share in the business. I believe that we will make money from the business”. The Wife said “It would be really good if [D H] can assist us in buying it and I do not have a problem with him obtaining 50 per cent of the profits”.
The Husband contends that his business dealings with D H have been since the Husband and Wife first commenced business trading at the franchise in L through OO Pty Ltd. The Husband contends that the company was a joint venture with D H as a 50 per cent shareholder and the Husband the remaining 50 per cent. The Husband contends that D H supplied venture capital in the sum of $115,000 and further allowed the Husband and Wife to mortgage a property of his in Melbourne in the sum of $115,000 as well as an overdraft secured over the property in the sum of $50,000. This was the totality of the capital utilized in acquiring and establishing the business. The Husband contends that the Wife was present at all discussions with D H as to the purchase of the business. He contends that at the time neither the Wife’s parents nor his parents were prepared to lend the parties money to acquire the business. The Husband contends that the name of the company was to reflect the interest of the two families and that the company name was an amalgam of the husband’s name, the wife’s name, D H’s name, and his wife’s name.
On 29 March 1990 the Husband and the Wife signed an acknowledgment addressed to D H that they were solely responsible for repayment of a fully drawn advance for $115,000.
P H contends that the amount of $115,000 that D H invested for his half share of the business was not owed to D H by OO Pty Ltd but by the Husband and the Wife personally.
The Wife contends that from the day the parties were married and especially between about 1990 and 1995, her parents assisted her with homemaker duties such as cleaning the house, washing clothes, ironing clothes and pet care so that she would be available to work in the franchise business seven days per week and contribute financially to household expenses, and she did work seven days per week for five years.

The Wife contends that from the date of the purchase of the franchise to the date of the sale of the business the Husband did not pay her any wages. The Husband arranged for all the finances of the franchise to be controlled by him directly and the Wife was given money by the Husband to purchase items required to run the household.
The Wife contends that on 13 June 1990 the sum of $48,000 was transferred from the bank account of OO Pty Ltd with Barclays Bank to an account in the name of D H with the National Bank of Greece. The Husband contends that the document relied upon by the Wife has been incorrectly altered and an amount of $8,000 has been shown to reflect $48,000. The Husband is in the process of ordering the bank statement for that date and all other dates so as to check the payments.
The Wife deposed that she calculated that between 13 August 1990 and 21 September 1996 the Husband transferred about $983,255 from the account of the franchise and a joint bank account held with the St George Bank to overseas bank accounts in Greece, England and the United States. The Wife contends that the Husband never discussed with her the use of company finances or the use of finances that were secured by her share of the matrimonial assets for the purpose of transferring these funds overseas. Further she is not aware as to what use these funds have been put or what property they may now represent. The Wife contends that she recalls the Husband said to her on one occasion during the period 1991 to 1996 words to the effect: “We need to send some money to Greece to assist with my sisters education. It is about $6,000”.
The Wife annexed to her affidavit documents that reveal numerous transfers from the bank account of the franchise with Barclays Bank between 2 May 1991 and 20 April 1995 to various overseas bank accounts including an account of D H with the Ioniki Bank in Greece being a US dollar account.
On 27 August 2007 when the Wife was cross-examined she was shown certain documents. On 3 July 1991 the Wife sent a facsimile transmission to D H and his wife, Mrs D H. This document appears to identify the Husband as a successful franchise sales person for May 1991. On 22 October 1992 the Wife wrote to D H and Mrs D H in relation to a payment of US$5,000 to a bank account of S H. Senior counsel for the Husband submitted that these documents are inconsistent with what the Wife said in paragraph 101 of her affidavit of 30 July 2007. I had some difficulty with the form of the drafting of some of what the Wife said in her affidavit. Further there may be some inconsistency because the Wife said, referring to documents in relation to payments overseas, that she “…took no part in their preparation". However what the Wife also said was that she had "no knowledge of the extent of these transactions". Obviously, the issues will be investigated and at the hearing of the applications for final orders there may be extensive cross examination of all parties and in particular the Wife in relation to the extent of her knowledge of the payments that were made overseas. However, at this time the evidence does not enable me to safely conclude that there is a significant or material inconsistency between the documents tendered on 27 August 2007 and what the Wife said in her affidavit.
The Husband contends that throughout the management of the franchise business D H received payments either in the form of dividends or consulting fees or other legitimate payments to which he was entitled. P H contends that D H received “dividends”. The Wife contends that she was aware that the Husband and the Wife borrowed money to acquire the franchise business and that she believed that some payments were made to D H when they were “tight”, referring to D H.
In summary the Wife contends that during the period of operation of the franchise, funds were transferred by the Husband out of Australia. The Wife contends that the Husband is the beneficial owner of those funds or a portion of the funds which were transferred primarily to D H. The Husband contends that the payments to D H were his share of the franchise’s “profits”.
In 1995 the franchise was sold for $700,000.
P H contends that from what D H told him when the franchise business was sold D H “got back his share of the capital invested”.
From 1995 the Husband through various entities, but principally the Liatos Family Trust, undertook a series of property transactions in Australia. The Husband contends that through much of his married life it was part of his overall financial strategy for he and the Wife to accumulate assets by acting as a funds manager and charging commissions and fees in respect of the business.
The Wife contends that from about 1995 she has been primarily responsible for domestic tasks and the care of the children.
The Wife contends that from the time the franchise was sold the Husband made further transfers of funds to overseas bank accounts.
By trust deed dated 15 November 1995 the Liatos Family Trust may have been established. The trustee was OO Pty Ltd.
The Wife contends that in about April 1996 the parties had a conversation during which the Husband said that he wanted to sell the parties home so as to release money in order that he could make investments. The Wife said she reluctantly agreed.
On 21 August 1996 an amount of $25,025 was transferred from the account of the Husband and the Wife with the St George Bank being for a foreign transaction loan to an unnamed friend.
There is a great deal of evidence about various transactions and events that took place after 1995-6 that may be relevant at the hearing of the property applications. However in my view I do not need to refer to a considerable amount of this evidence for the purpose of dealing with the current applications.
On 14 November 1996 a share certificate was issued in the name of the Wife that she held one share in OO Pty Ltd. The share may have been transferred by D H. The Husband contends that in about 1996, after the franchise was sold and the company was no longer trading, it was then that the share of D H in the company was transferred to the Wife.
On 14 November 1996 the Wife may have been appointed a director of OO Pty Ltd.
On 8 October 1997 OO Pty Ltd may have resigned as the trustee of the Liatos Family Trust and Liatos Administration Pty Ltd appointed as the trustee.
On 24 December 1998 the Liatos Growth Property Trust may have had net assets of $8,263,951.99 subject perhaps to market valuations.
On 4 March 1999 the Managing Director of the Liatos Group wrote to the National Australia Bank and stated: “…I hereby confirm that Mr [Liatos] is the Group’s Chief Executive and currently his 70% ownership of our property trusts is valued by the external auditors price at $4,190,387.83….For the financial year to date his income distributions are $703,995.48”. The Wife contends that the Husband never disclosed to her that he had such an income during the marriage nor disclosed to her that he is the 70 per cent owner of the property trusts.
The Husband contends that in about 1999 the Liatos Growth Property Trust purchased a property at C for $3,250,000 by creating a special purpose vehicle called the C Property Trust. The Husband contends that the property trust had 20 investors. The property trust was managed by Liatos Group Pty Ltd.
On 25 October 1999 the Husband may have acquired 10 ordinary shares in Liatos Administration Pty Ltd.
On 10 April 2000 F Australia Pty Ltd was incorporated in Australia. The Husband was appointed a director. Mr M and Mr S were also appointed directors.
The Husband deposed that Mr M is a lawyer who acted on the C Property Trust and was one of the founders of F Australia Pty Ltd. Mr M obtained a 10 per cent interest in F Australia Pty Ltd, however on the winding up of the Company he ceased to have any further involvement. In addition Mr M did various legal work for the Liatos Group.
P H contends that in 2000 the Husband contacted D H and proposed some “investment deals” in Sydney. P H contends that from 1995 till 2000 the Husband continued doing property “deals” and created a successful track record as a fund manager. P H contends that D H and other investors in Greece due to Greek currency uncertainty wanted to invest abroad to diversify their investment portfolios. Since the Husband proved to be a good investment in the early 1990s and was a proven fund manager in the later 1990s they decided to pull together some funds and invest in Australia. P H said that specifically the first investment would be in the C Property Trust.
The former matrimonial home at V may have been purchased in July 2000.
The Husband contends that by 2001 he and the Wife were in considerable debt in the vicinity of $3,600,000 with interest compounding monthly mainly through their joint vehicle the Liatos Family Trust. The Husband contends that the property trusts had incurred unexpectedly high holding costs especially in relation to the C property development undertaken through the C Property Trust in the previous two years as a result of extensive and expensive contamination reports required and land tax which at the time of purchase was $1 per annum as contaminated land and shortly thereafter was $45,000 per annum. In addition an extensive town planning dispute with North Sydney Council in relation to the D property development had resulted in the cash position of the trust being depleted. The Husband contends that the Liatos Family Trust being the “cornerstone investor” of the Liatos Growth Property Trust invested more money in times where a cash injection was required as in this instance.
The Husband contends that, at that time, the substantial amount of debt that the Liatos Family Trust had; the risk involved in the property deals; the effect of the post Olympic market softening, and the nervousness of the Husband’s bankers in relation to the contamination issue caused him to consider the parties financial position. The Husband contends that he made a decision to sell the property. At the time the property was placed on the market for sale. A conditional sale to Multiplex failed to proceed and an unconditional sale to Meriton also failed to proceed with the buyers changing their mind in view of contamination concerns and a cost of decontaminating at $9 million. The Husband contends that an urgent injection of funds was needed and he had earlier commenced discussions with D H with a view to entering into a joint venture with the Liatos Family Trust in order to provide the required funds. The Husband contends that he and D H agreed that through his investment company called G Capital Pte Ltd domiciled in Singapore D H would provide an initial investment of $4,270,000 through the Liatos Family Trust so as to allow the Husband and the Wife to completely pay out their entire debt and therefore not incur any more compound interest costs.
On 8 May 2001 Ms Antunes wrote the Husband and attached a request for a “B/G send” to St George Bank “for your records”. There was put into evidence a copy of an undated email sent by the Husband to Mr J at the St George Bank. It may be that this is the annexure identified in the letter of 8 May 2001. In the email the Husband provided “details of the transaction”. The Husband stated that a bank guarantee was required in favour of Laiki Bank Cyprus for the benefit of the JV company in Singapore to be named. He said the JV company is the investment vehicle of a syndicate of Greek investors managed by a long term business partner being a 50 per cent partner in the franchise business and adviser of the Husband being Mr P H. Pausing there the Husband had contended that his partner in the franchise business was D H. In any event the Husband stated that the JV partner required the bank guarantee in order to safe guard the capital investment from fraud. The Husband said that the JV would focus on the successful disposal of the C property and the D property and the funds would be used as extra required capital and to retire debt of the Liatos Family Trust with the St George Bank. He stated that the JV is between the Liatos Family Trust and the JV partner and that for “commercial reasons strict confidentiality is required”. The Husband stated that the relationship aims for the “[Liatos Group Facilities Trust] to be the manager of future overseas projects on behalf of the JV partner and LGPT and thus expand our earning potential…”.
On 13 June 2001 the St George Bank made an offer to Liatos Administration Pty Ltd of a bank guarantee facility for $5,500,000. It was stated that the purpose of the facility was to provide security in relation to a joint venture with an overseas party. Clauses 3 and 5 of the Special Conditions provide as follows:
3. Drawdown of this guarantee facility is subject to the repayment of the existing [Liatos] Group Pty Ltd as trustee for the [Liatos] Family Trust $3,592,000 facility, together with confirmation of receipt of remaining $500,000 capital injection to be provided by the Joint Venture partner.
…
5. In the situation of the [C] security property being sold, a Deed of Set-Off over cash funds of not less than $5.5 million to be provided by the borrower.
On 20 June 2001 the Husband as Chief Executive of the Liatos Group represented that the parties had an estimated cash investment value in the Liatos Family Trust including profit, original capital and any reinvestments of $6,500,645.
On 21 June 2001 G Capital Pte Ltd was incorporated in Singapore.
On 21 June 2001 the Husband wrote to Ms Antunes and advised that contrary to previous advice the bank accounts would not be held with Laiki Bank and that the funds would go directly from Laiki Bank to the St George Bank.
There was put into evidence a document produced by Antunes Lawyers. It appears to be a letter dated 21 June 2001 sent by P H to M Fiduciary Services in the Channel Islands in relation to the establishment of a Channel Islands Discretionary Trust and the Singapore Resident Company. Amongst other things P H said that the profit is to be classified as capital profit.
On 28 June 2001 M Fiduciary Services wrote to P H and sent a copy to Ms Antunes. The subject was Channel Islands Discretionary Trust and Singapore Resident Company and the author was seeking instructions such as the identity of the beneficiaries of the Trust. The document appears to have been sent to the Husband who provided instructions.
There was produced by Antunes Lawyers what appears to be a conference note or telephone conference note dated 29 June 2001 in relation to instructions received from the Husband.
For the year ended 2001 the Husband had a taxable income of $316,645 which included capital gains of $295,327.
There was also put into evidence what appears to be a conference note produced by Antunes Lawyers dated 3 July 2001. I will not repeat what appears on the face of this document. It refers to a conference with the Husband. It has a diagram that suggests that 10 per cent of the profit will remain in Australia and 90 per cent will go to the “JV”.
There was produced by Antunes Lawyers what may be a file note dated 26 July 2001 in relation to a consultation with the Husband.
On 15 August 2001 a Joint Venture Deed prepared by Antunes Lawyers was executed between Liatos Administration Pty Ltd as trustee for the Liatos Family Trust and G Capital Pte Ltd. Pursuant to the Joint Venture Deed, G Capital Pte Ltd agreed to invest the amount of $4,270,000 in the Liatos Family Trust. As a consequence of the purported capital injection, the Liatos Family Trust agreed to hold certain units in property developments already under construction or nearing completion if not already sold, on behalf of G Capital Pte Ltd. Clause 4.1 of the Agreement provided that:
All monies received by virtue of or relating to the holding, distribution and/or disposal of the units shall belong to the business venture and shall be applied as follows:
(i) 90% of the profits to the investor (being [G Capital Pte Ltd]);
(ii) 10% of the profits to the LFT.
Subsequently, the Joint Venture Agreement was amended in 2003 and those amendments appear to have taken place after funds were repatriated to G Capital Pte Ltd. The Amended Deed is re-dated 15 August 2001.
The Wife contends that no sensible explanation is given by the Husband for why in August 2001 the Liatos Property Group needed $4,270,000. The Liatos Property Group had in place financing with the St George Bank and the alleged overseas funding was applied to repay an already existing loan from bank. Furthermore, the sale of the development at C must have been imminent in August 2001 given that sale was completed on 16 January 2002 with a profit in excess of $10,000,000. I assume that the Husband contends that he has given an explanation as set out above.
The Husband contends that on 30 August 2001 the Liatos Group received funds totalling $4,270,000 from the Popular Bank of Cyprus. A sum of $3,600,000 was to pay off the Liatos Family Trust debt with the St George Bank and the balance was utilised to invest in the C Property Trust as funds for working capital.
On 31 August 2001 M Fiduciary Services sent a facsimile transmission to Ms Antunes titled “[Channel Islands] Discretionary Trust” and further “The [E] Settlement” and enclosed the draft trust deed “for your consideration”. In evidence was a copy of a draft trust deed and it appears to relate to the E Trust.
By letter dated 3 September 2001 a Senior Account Executive with Corporate Banking at the St George Bank wrote to the Husband and said: “As you aware we received funds from the Popular Bank of Cyprus on Friday 30/08/01 totalling $4,270,000.00 in line with the condition outlined in the Standby letter of Credit issued. This letter of Credit is now unconditional and is an effective document…”.
The funds transfer may have been by way of direct transfer from Cyprus to Australia. The Wife contends that for accounting purposes the transfer was recorded as purportedly from the Laiki Bank in Cyprus to the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank account in Channel Islands of G Capital Pte Ltd and there was then a transfer from the bank account of G Capital Pte Ltd in Channel Islands to the bank account of the Liatos Family Trust with the St George Bank in Australia.
The Wife contends that the funds paid into the St George Bank were raised using a letter of credit on the security of the $5,500,000 guarantee facility which was in turn secured over the property investments of the Liatos Family Trust. The letter of credit appears to have been granted in favour of either P H or perhaps G Capital Pte Ltd.
On 21 September 2001 Ms Antunes wrote to the Husband enclosing pages of amendments to be sent to “[M]”. The letter is headed “trust”.
On 21 September 2001 Ms Antunes sent a facsimile transmission to M Fiduciary Services headed “The [E] Settlement”. Ms Antunes acknowledged receipt of a draft trust deed and enclosed some five identified pages with amendments shown and requested “Please make these amendments to the trust deed”. There was also put into evidence what appears to be the pages identified by Ms Antunes. The handwriting on the pages may be that of the Husband.
On 2 October 2001 P H may have obtained from the Laiki Bank a fixed term loan for AUD4,299,276 which included accrued interest.
P H contends that the E Settlement was created on 20 November 2001 and that he was the Settlor and Protector and M Fiduciary Services was the trustee. He described it as a discretionary trust that would hold funds to be distributed to the investments. He deposed that as tax efficiency is always very important a structure had to be set up to shelter income from the investments and to this end a discretionary trust was formed in Channel Islands and named the E Settlement. This entity would hold the funds to be distributed to the investments wherever those would be.

P H said that the Husband, being an experienced businessman and trustworthy, helped “us” in obtaining information as to the best and most tax efficient structure for “our investment” in Australia. P H said that the Husband and his associates, being lawyers and accountants, knowledge of Australian tax laws was essential for the determination of the company structure. P H deposed that the Husband “provided us with that information”. P H contends that the Husband never controlled this process, he never controlled the parties involved and was not an agent or representative. P H contends that the Husband never controlled the funds and he only controlled the investments. P H said that the first investment pool of funds was gathered in an account in Channel Islands and with the intention to invest in Australia and with the Husband. He contends that the first investment was C Property Trust and D Property Trust. Both were made through “[G] Capital Ltd”. P H contends that he was the director of that company and the E Settlement was the shareholder.
On 20 December 2001 the Husband wrote to Ms Antunes referring to a conversation and confirmed that P H “will” act as director of G Capital Pte Ltd and that this company “will be non resident”.
On 16 January 2002 the sale of the C property development was settled and two cheques in the amount of $11,000,000 and $538,926 were paid to accounts of Liatos Group Pty Ltd. Of the amount of $11,538,926 paid to those accounts, $10,538,926 was paid to a fixed deposit at the St George Bank. The Wife contends that the profit on the C development was $10,558,880.77.
The general journal of the C Property Trust shows a distribution of $4,387,276.43 to the Liatos Group Property Trust. Additionally the general journal shows further distributions in the amount of $5,949,400.88 to the Liatos Group Property Trust and $807,620.54 to the Liatos Family Trust. There is a journal entry dated 16 January 2002 for the sum of $4,387,276.43 being a distribution to the Liatos Growth Property Trust. The Wife contends that the Husband used these monies to make a transfer to G Capital Pte Ltd which represents the precise amount the Husband paid to G Capital Pte Ltd in February 2002.
As at 29 January 2002 Liatos Group Pty Ltd had a term deposit account with the St George Bank with a credit balance of $10,538,926.23.
The Wife deposed that she calculated that between 30 January 2002 and 20 February 2003, being a period of about thirteen months, the Husband withdrew from accounts with St George Bank and transferred overseas to bank accounts in Hong Kong about $8,101,789.18.
On 4 February 2002, the Husband’s accountant MW Chartered Accountants sent the Husband a tax invoice for work performed on behalf of F Australia Pty Limited.
On 13 February 2002 the Husband wrote to P H, perhaps in a somewhat more formal way compared to other correspondence, in relation to the Liatos Group and “distribution schedule for your approval from the [C Property] Sale”. The letter concluded “Once again, we thank you for your assistance in this matter”.
On 20 February 2002 F International Ltd was incorporated in Samoa pursuant to the Samoa International Companies Act 1987. P H was appointed a director and WS Ltd was appointed the secretary. On 20 February 2002 S Trust acquired 100,000 ordinary shares for $100,000 in F International Ltd.
On 20 February 2002 P H consented to be a director of F International Ltd.
On 10 February 2004 the Husband sent a facsimile letter to Mr T H of the S Trust in relation to G Capital Pte Ltd advising that he had made a payment of $4,387,276.43 in February 2002.
There was put into evidence a file note produced by Antunes Lawyers dated 26 February 2002 in which there is recorded a telephone attendance upon the Husband in relation to the E Settlement. It is stated that Ms Antunes rang the Husband “and advised on progress of matter”.
P H deposed that in March 2002 the Husband and his partners in “F” being Mr M and Mr S “visited us” in Greece. P H contends “they”, being the Husband and his partners, were on a business trip in Europe in an effort to find partners and fund support for their venture. He contends that they “presented us [myself, [D H] and other investors] with their business plan”. P H did not identify the “other investors”. P H contends that “They had already incorporated [F] Australia”, all three being shareholders and wanted funds support for the expansion that they sought. He contends that the decision was made that a “mother company” would be incorporated that would buy “[F] Australia”. The shareholders of “[F] Australia” would control 30 per cent of the “mother company” and the name would be “[F] International”. P H deposed that in 2002 F International Ltd was incorporated in Samoa and registered in Hong Kong and the Husband and his partner Mr M assisted in the process of finding an adequate structure for the venture. P H contends that Mr M being involved in the incorporation of the company was the only one that actually held a 10 per cent share when the company was formed.
The Husband contends that he had spoken with P H who since the death of D H is the trustee of the E Settlement in order to seek to borrow funds. The Husband contends that P H had on numerous occasions said to the Husband words to the following effect: “the [E] settlement will transfer the funds to [J] Capital and [J] Capital will be the lender. Can you also check for other good real estate investments for me to make in Australia. I will be utilizing the [E] settlement and [J] Capital vehicle to make those investments” The Husband contends that conversations of this nature occurred on numerous occasions and he was always looking out for good investment properties for P H and prior to him, D H. The Husband contends that he aimed to do so in anticipation that there would be opportunities for him to participate in those investments. As part of his overall strategy the Husband needed to be aware of the amount of funds that were earmarked for investment in Australia. The Husband contends that he referred to such funds on occasions by quite wrongly using inclusive terms such as “ours” or “we”. He identified as some examples the contents of documents attached to the Wife’s affidavit. The Husband contends that whilst he used those collective terms he neither intended to assert nor was it the fact that at any time he held any beneficial interest in funds held by the E Settlement, J Capital Ltd or G Capital Pte Ltd. The Husband contends that D H and P H in view of the Husband’s close relationship had always provided him with the information of this nature. The Husband deposed that as part of the loan he gave joint and several guarantees for the Liatos Group Pty Limited, an individual personal guarantee and a guarantee for Liatos Administration Pty Limited as Trustee for Liatos Family Trust.
On 3 March 2002 the Laiki Bank wrote to P H and noted the cancellation of the St George Bank letter of credit which had been drawn in his favour in the amount of $5,500,000.
On 18 March 2002 the St George Bank made an offer to Liatos Administration Pty Ltd of a loan for $3,813,000.
On 20 March 2002 M Fiduciary Services as trustee of the E Settlement acquired one million ordinary shares for AUD0.01 in F International Ltd.
On 20 March 2002 M Fiduciary Services wrote to Ms I of S Trust in relation to G Capital Pte Ltd. The document was produced by Antunes Lawyers. There was also enclosed a copy of a bank statement “…detailing that AUD4,275,493 has been loaned by Laiki Bank to Mr [H]. As you are aware, Mr [H] then loaned the sum to the [E] Settlement who then loaned the funds to [G] and then on to the Australian Trust in respect of the investment costs of the units in the Property Development Company. No physical movement of funds took place and the abovementioned transactions are therefore to be ratified by the Company. Once Mr D and Mr C had been appointed as directors I can arrange for this to be ratified or, alternatively, should you prefer, I can arrange to provide you with the necessary loan information to enable you to minute this now.”. A copy of this letter was sent to Ms Antunes and P H.
On 21 March 2002 Ms I of S Trust in Singapore wrote to Ms Antunes in relation to G Capital Pte Ltd and opening a bank account with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong.
On 22 March 2002 Ms I of S Trust in Singapore wrote to Ms Antunes and confirmed that relevant documents pertaining to G Capital Pte Ltd had been forwarded to Ms L of the S Trust in Hong Kong. A request was made that P H call at the Hong Kong office.
On 22 March 2002 Ms Antunes wrote to the Husband in relation to “[G] Capital Ltd” and F International Ltd and advised that arrangements had been made with S Trust to forward to their Hong Kong office all necessary documentation with respect to establishing a bank account of G Capital Ltd with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong and to change the share capital in F International Ltd from $1 shares to $0.01shares.
On 22 March 2002 Ms I of S Trust in Singapore wrote to P H care of the S Trust in Hong Kong. The Wife contends that the Husband appears to have paid expenses for the sum of $8,640 on behalf of F International Ltd being part of the establishment costs of the company.
On 25 March 2002 Ms Antunes wrote to Ms I of S Trust in relation to G Capital Pte Ltd and F International Ltd and gave instructions. Ms Antunes confirmed that Mr H would be going to Hong Kong to execute all documents in relation to opening the bank account for G Capital Pte Ltd as a joint signatory with S Trust; all necessary documentation in relation to directorship, minutes of meetings etc to make the company fully operational; sign all necessary documentation to alter the share capital of F International Ltd from $1 Australian shares to $0.01 Australian shares and sign all documentation in relation to loans. Ms Antunes advised that the shares in F International Ltd to be allotted were 1,000,000 X $0.01 Australian shares to “Mr [H]”.
On 25 March 2002 Ms Antunes wrote to the Husband in relation to G Capital Pte Ltd and F International Ltd enclosing various documents being copies of correspondence dated 20, 22 and 25 March 2002.
On 27 March 2002 Ms I of S Trust in Singapore wrote to Ms Antunes and advised that Ms L of S Trust in Hong Kong advised that although some accounts are allowed to be opened by companies the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong generally does not accept sub accounts in the names of trusts and hence it would not be possible for G Pte Ltd to have another account opened in the name of the E Trust. Ms I requested further instructions “on this matter”.
On 27 March 2002 Ms Antunes wrote to the Husband and in the letter titled “The [E] Settlement” enclosed an account from an identified person and requested a cheque payable to this person as soon as possible in full and final settlement of an outstanding invoice.
On 28 March 2002 D H executed a Power of Attorney appointing the Husband jointly and severally with S H as his attorneys.
On 12 April 2002 Mr K of S Trust in Singapore wrote to Ms Antunes in relation to F International Ltd. It was stated that advice had been received from the S Trust in Hong Kong that they had been contacted by the Husband who requested that arrangements be made for him to be an authorised signatory to the bank account of F International Ltd to be opened with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong. Instructions were sought as to whether Mr H and the Husband “…will sign singly or jointly to operate the account”.
On 15 April 2002 Ms Antunes wrote to Mr K of S Trust in Singapore and confirmed that the Husband would be a signatory on the account and that the account would be operated by the Husband or Mr H with either person authorised to sign and not required to jointly operate. This became the bank account of J Capital Ltd.
On 25 April 2002 Mr K of S Trust in Singapore wrote to Ms Antunes in relation to F International Ltd and G Capital Pte Ltd. I will not repeat all of what is contained in this document. It refers to a meeting in Hong Kong on 29 April 2002 with the Husband and Mr H. As well, a request was made to communicate directly with the Husband in relation to the number of shares in F International Ltd issued to the E Trust and the allotment of further shares, the setting up of a registered office for F International Ltd in Hong Kong and any other expenses relating to “account opening” for G Capital Pte Ltd.
There was put into evidence what appears to be a document produced by Antunes Lawyers dated 2 May 2002. It is recorded that the Husband “called” and advised that G Pte Ltd “to ratify loan from [Mr H]”. There is reference to a loan to the E Settlement and a loan to G Capital Pte Ltd. On behalf of the Wife it was submitted that this is evidence that the Husband gave instructions about the movement of funds.
On 10 May 2002 f International Ltd was registered in Hong Kong as an overseas company.
On 13 May 2002 Mr S resigned as a director of F Australia Pty Ltd.
On 17 May 2002 the St George Bank made an offer to Liatos Administration Pty Ltd of a loan for $400,000 to assist with the refinance of a marine vessel in the name of Liatos Seaside Pty Ltd.
On 20 May 2002 M Financial Services as trustee of the E Settlement may have acquired nine hundred thousand ordinary shares for AUD0.01 in F International Ltd.
On 20 May 2002 MO Services Pty Ltd may have acquired from M Trust Company Ltd one hundred thousand ordinary shares for AUD0.01 in F International Ltd.
The financial statements of F Australia Pty Ltd for the year ended 30 June 2002 disclose that it was proposed that the company be a fully owned subsidiary of F International Ltd and the shareholders invest in F International Ltd. However it was later determined that this structure was unsuitable and the investors should hold a direct interest in F International Ltd. F Australia Pty Ltd had an operating loss of ($700,473). The company rented premises from the Liatos Group Facilities Trust and also purchased equipment from the trust. F International Ltd is referred to as a related party and there is an entry of $157,674 in favour of F International Ltd.
P H contends that after the collapse of the “[F] business plan, when the dotcom crash occurred” there was no need for the participation of other investors or shareholders in F International Ltd.
On 19 July 2002 Mr M resigned as a director of F Australia Pty Ltd.
On 3 September 2002 Ms N who is described as a Trust Manager on behalf of M Fiduciary Services wrote to P H. The letter is very detailed and I do not suggest that I fully understand the ramifications or effect of what is said. However the following is some of what I believe is said:
·M Trust Company Ltd was the trustee of the E Settlement.
·The trust may have a US$ bank account with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Delaware
·The trust may have a AUD bank account with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Sydney
·The trust may open a HK$ bank account with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong.
·The trust has shares in F International Ltd
·The gross assets of the settlement consist of a AUD4,275,491 loan to G Capital Pte Ltd and a AUD17,590.13 loan to G Capital Pte Ltd being a total of AUD4,309,421.50
There was also reference to confirmation to be provided by Laiki Bank in relation to loans.
P H contends that on 20 September 2002 he appointed his sister S H as the Protector of the E Settlement. S H may have accepted this role by a deed poll dated 23 September 2002 which appears to have been executed in Greece and her signature witnessed by Mrs D H.
By deed of retirement and appointment of new trustees dated 24 October 2002 M Financial Services retired as trustee of the E Settlement and P H and D H were appointed as the trustees by S M in her capacity as the Protector of the trust. P H, D H and S H resided in Greece. The assets of the settlement were described as two ordinary shares in G Capital Pte Ltd and 1,000,000 shares in F International Ltd.
On 24 October 2002 MO Services Pty Ltd in consideration of one dollar transferred 100,000 ordinary shares in F International Ltd to P H and D H as trustees of the E Settlement. P H contends that since Mr M was the only shareholder other than the E Settlement his shares were transferred “to us”. P H contends that at the same time the new trustees of the E Settlement became he and D H and so the shares were transferred from M Fiduciary Services to he and D H as trustees for the E Settlement.
On 27 November 2002 the Husband wrote to the St George Bank directing Mr J to transfer $1,000,000 from an account of Liatos Group Pty Ltd, to an account in the name of G Capital Pte Ltd with the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong. At this point since January 2002 an amount of $5,387,276.43 had been transferred to G Pte Ltd in relation to the loan or investment it made of $4,270,000 in September 2001.
In November 2002 the M Fiduciary Services directors of G Capital Pte Ltd resigned.
P H wrote to the Husband and referred to €310,000 that the Husband sent “us” in December 2002 relating to the purchase of land at X, Greece.
On 3 January 2003 the Husband wrote to the St George Bank directing Mr Y to transfer $956,767.75 from the account of Liatos Group Pty Ltd to an account in the name of G Capital Pte Ltd with the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong. At this point since January 2002 an amount of $6,344,044.18 had been transferred to G Pte Ltd in relation to the loan or investment it made of $4,270,000 in September 2001.
On 21 January 2003 there may have been $1,340,000 to the credit of an account with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Channel Islands. It was from this account that $1,050,064 may have been withdrawn on 22 May 2003.
On 21 January 2003 M Fiduciary Services in consideration of AUD1 may have transferred 900,000 ordinary shares in F International Ltd to P H and D H as trustees of the E Settlement.
On 10 February 2004 the Husband sent a facsimile letter to Mr T H of the S Trust in relation G Capital Pte Ltd advising that he had made a payment of $956,767.75 in January 2003.
On 20 February 2003, the Husband wrote to the St George Bank directing Mr Y to transfer $660,080.03 from the account of Liatos Group Pty to an account in the name of G Capital Pte Ltd with the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong. On 10 February 2004 the Husband sent a facsimile letter to Mr T H of the S Trust in relation G Capital Pte Ltd advising that he had made a payment of $660,080.03 in February 2003.
At this point since January 2002 an amount of $7,004,124.21 has been transferred to G Pte Ltd in relation to the loan or investment it made of $4,270,000 in September 2001. At the trial there may have to be evidence as to exactly how the proceeds of sale of the C property were dispersed. In any event the Wife contends that it was an extraordinarily favourable investment for P H and D H because they received a return of $2,734,124.21.
On 10 February 2004 the Husband wrote to S Trust “re [G] Capital Pte Ltd” and acknowledged the payment on various dates of $7,004,124.21 to [G] Capital Pte Ltd pursuant to the Joint Venture Deed. The first of those transfers is said to have been in February 2002 in the amount of $4,387,276.43, the exact sum referred to in the general journal of the C Property Trust. By this time the C development was finished. The Wife contends that it is now necessary to consider the next investment/development.
The Wife contends that G Capital Pte Ltd was subsequently struck off the relevant register and that at least part of the funds transferred to G Capital Pte Ltd were subsequently used to provide loans in the amount of $1,050,000 and $450,000 from J Capital Ltd said to be owned by the E Settlement to the Liatos Family Trust for the A property development.

The Husband deposed that upon exchange of the A contract for sale on 7 May 2007 a 10 per cent deposit of $555,000 was paid. Of this sum an amount of $277,500 (being 5 per cent) was retained by the agent in a trust account. The remaining deposit money in the sum of $277,500 was released to the Liatos A Property Trust. Later in May 2007 a payment of $150,000 was made to J Capital Ltd in reduction of the loan amount. The balance of $127,500.00 was retained in the bank account of the Liatos A Property Trust in order to service monthly interest payments to Suncorp Metway in the sum of $17,000 per month as well as payments for other expenses. At present there is a sum of $10,144.34 in the account.
P H contends that J Capital Ltd is an investment house. The investment made in 2003 had an initial term of two years. The business plan that “our” company backed was of the development of the “[A Centre]” a shopping centre being built on the property. He said that nevertheless it proved to be “too green” as time passed and the Husband decided to liquidate the investment without it being built. He said that despite this “sluggish” development of the business plan, the company extended the loan without changing the interest rate charged. The sale of the property has been successful and settlement is due on 7 August 2007. He said that this has been a known fact “to us” for three months. He said that with this information “we” have entered discussions with various parties for the re-investment of the funds paid to “us” from the A project. He said that the next investment “we” are about to fund is the development of a solar - photovoltaic park in Greece.
On 9 May 2007 the following orders were made by consent:
1.      The Proceedings are adjourned to the Call-over of the Judicial Registrar’s Duty List at 9.30am on 22 May 2007.
2.      By consent the Wife pay from moneys from the Commonwealth Bank Account […] mortgage interest accruing in respect of the advances from the Commonwealth Bank secured over the residence at [V] until 6.00pm on 22 May 2007.
IT IS NOTED
3.      The undertakings of the Wife in terms of paragraph 5 made 13 March 2007 is continued until 6.00pm on the adjourned date AND that undertaking is given through her Solicitor today.
On 22 May 2007 the following orders were made and the proceedings were adjourned to 18 June 2007:
Exhibit 1
2. By consent the Wife pay from moneys from the Commonwealth Bank Account […] mortgage interest accruing in respect of the advances from the Commonwealth Bank secured over the residence at [V] until 6.00pm on 19 June 2007.
It is noted:
3. The undertakings of the Wife in terms of paragraph 5 made 13 March 2007 is continued until 6.00pm on the adjourned date AND that undertaking is given through her Solicitor.
There were a number of further mentions during which the previous injunctions were extended culminating with the appearance on 18 June 2007. By that date the Wife had instructed her current solicitors who were seeking the file from her previous solicitors before they could properly advise her. The Husband contends that consequently, to facilitate this, he consented to the injunctions being varied so that the Wife received the sum of $20,341.50 to pay her previous solicitors.
The Husband contends that on or about 29 May 2007 he telephoned the Wife and said words to the following effect “[…] as you are aware we have closed down the [Liatos Finance] business and I am leaving Australia on 31 May 2007”. The Husband told the Wife that he wished to place all the parties’ business records in the garage for a short period of time until he could arrange for them to be moved to a different place. He said “Do you mind if I leave them in the garage”. The Wife said “I do not like the idea of you leaving them in the garage however if they are only there for a short time, I do not have any problem with you leaving them there”. The Husband deposed that as he did not have any other place to leave them he took them to the Wife’s home and left them in the garage with the intention of moving them to another area once he had located same. He denied that he said to the Wife that he intended shredding the documents. The Husband deposed that he is fully aware that they are financial records and the requirement for their retention and he has always maintained meticulous records of all his financial and business dealings. He contends that it is these records that the Wife now claims constitute evidence of his long term fraudulent activities. The Husband deposed that the Wife did not make the same suggestion about many of the very same documents that were annexed to the draft affidavit received in March 2007. He contends that if they were evidence of incriminating activity on his behalf, why in the context of these proceedings would he deliver them up to the Wife. He contends that they are each capable of proper explanation and context which at present he has only had the opportunity to provide in a general way.
On 29 May 2007 the Wife’s solicitor wrote to the Husband’s solicitor and advised that the Wife opposed any proceeds of the sale of A property being used to discharge any loan from J Capital Ltd or disperse any of net proceeds of the sale unless the Husband provided full and frank disclosure of his relationship to J Capital Ltd and its subsequent impact or effect on determining the matrimonial pool of assets.
On 29 May 2007 the Husband’s solicitors wrote to the Wife’s solicitors and amongst other things enclosed a letter from Gadens lawyers dated 29 May 2007. The Husband’s solicitor also said that “[J] Capital has had a long relationship of lending money to the parties…”.
The Husband contends that the Wife or her legal representatives, despite being on notice since 29 May 2007 as to the sale did not see fit to try and minimise the damage likely to be done to any mortgagee by bringing proceedings earlier and placing the mortgagees on notice as to the right to defend their interest. The Husband contends that he is concerned as to the damage that the parties will suffer as a result of Wife’s actions. The Husband contends that without prior notice to him, after she had been advised of the sale, on 5 June 2007 the Wife proceeded to file a caveat on the title of the A property.
The Husband denies that the loan from J Capital Ltd is a sham. He contends that there is a long association between the owners of J Capital Ltd and the Liatos Group wherein investments have been made with the association commencing since Husband and Wife first entered into business in 1990. The Husband denied that he owns or controls J Capital Ltd or has any beneficial interest in any funds held by J Capital Ltd.
On 30 May 2007 the Husband left for Greece and in the week prior to leaving shipped all his personal items and home office equipment.
On 5 June 2007 the Wife caused a caveat to be lodged on the title of the A property.
The Husband contends that he was extremely concerned as to his funds being depleted. His car lease expired in June 2007 and he was required to pay a residual payment of $42,000. He contends that he could not afford to pay the amount and he sold the car for $36,000 and paid the difference of $6,000. The Husband contends that he was extremely upset at the time and he spoke to the Wife prior to selling the car and said to her words to the effect “I need $42,000 to pay the residual payment on the car the lease. Will you give me money”. The Wife said “No it is your problem”. The Husband said “My money is running out. I cannot afford to pay my rent and you have closed my business down. I beg you lets settle this so I can move on and become financially productive again for the sake of the kids”. The Wife said “I don’t care I want you to be in the street, I want to ruin you, I don’t feel sorry for you. I will not give you a cent”. The Husband said “I am going to let go of my apartment and go overseas to try and make some money. I think it is my best chance of creating an income in the short term”. The Wife said “I don’t believe you, you are just running away” The Husband said “You just don’t understand that neither one of us is making an income and the way we are going our kids will be in the street before you know it. I beg you lets settle this.” The Husband did not identify the source of the amount of $6,000.
On 18 June 2007 the following orders were made by consent:
1.      That the wife shall pay for monies drawn by her from the Commonwealth Bank Account […] the mortgage interest accruing in respect of the advances from the Commonwealth Bank secured over the residence of [V].
2.      That each party have liberty to relist the proceedings on 48 hours notice.
3.      That the parties attend a conciliation conference on 20 July 2007 at 9:15 am.
IT IS NOTED
4.      The undertakings of the wife in terms of paragraph 5 made 13 March 2007 are continued until further order, save that the wife is permitted to pay to Maloney Lawyers the sum of $20,341.50 in respect of her legal costs.
The Husband contends that it was then agreed that the legal representatives would meet on 22 June 2007 to discuss the terms of the formal documentation to give effect to the Heads of Agreement. The Husband was in Greece. The Husband deposed that he intended to participate by telephone, but the Wife withdrew because he was not to be there personally. The Husband contends that until 13 July 2007 when letters arrived again complaining about his disclosure he had understood that the matter remained settled.
The Wife contends that at about the end of June 2007, she became curious as to what documents the archive boxes contained and she decided to look through the boxes the Husband had given to her in April or May 2007. The Wife contends that in late June 2007 she began to look at the documents and formed the view they were documents relating to companies, trusts, corporate trustees and real property the parties had been involved with since they were married on 21 August 1988. From these boxes she obtained some of the documents attached to her affidavit. The Wife has instructed her solicitor to prepare a list of these documents to comply with the duty of disclosure and this is presently being done. The Wife estimates there are about 10,000 documents in total.
On behalf of the Husband it was submitted that the Wife already had some of the documents she is now contending she only saw in late June 2007 because some of them were annexed to the draft March 2007 affidavit.
The Husband contends that if he had wished to hide anything from the Wife he would not have requested her to allow him to leave the business documents in the garage of the former matrimonial home.
The Wife also contends that she observed documents that appear to purport to contain her signature but upon inspection she formed the view that the signatures are not hers but a forgery of her signature. She said that as a consequence she instructed her solicitor to instruct an expert to prepare a report with respect to the signatures that appeared to be forgeries of her signature as well as the signature of her father. The Wife’s solicitor retained a forensic document expert and he prepared a report dated 22 June 2007 a copy of which was attached to the Wife’s affidavit. The Husband objects to the receipt of this report into evidence. As I indicated during discussion, in dealing with the current applications I have ignored the opinions of the forensic document expert.
The Husband contends that as at 30 June 2007 Liatos Group Pty Ltd as trustee of the Liatos A Property trust owed $2,503,956.91 to J Capital Ltd. This relates to the payments of $1,500,000 made in April and May 2003. In his affidavit of 9 August 2007 the Husband said the debt is approximately $2,380,000.
The Husband contends that by 1 July 2007 he secured a suitable office/apartment which he planned to set up with funds received from the matrimonial settlement. He still maintains the apartment in Greece. He deposed that as at the date of his departure for Australia his items had still not arrived in Greece.
On 12 July 2007 the Wife received a letter enclosing a Notice under the Land Titles Act 1994 (Qld) requiring her to commence proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the interest claimed under the caveat lodged on the title of the A land and further requiring that such proceedings be started within 14 days after the notice was served on her.
The Wife contends that on 13 July 2007 the Husband made a Borrower Income Declaration to Aussie Mortgages in respect of obtaining finance and he declared that the income he receives per annum through the Liatos Family Trust is $1,500,000. The Husband contends that he signed the declaration on 13 July 2004.
On 13 July 2007 the solicitors for the Wife wrote to the solicitors for the Husband and amongst other things complained about the lack of disclosure by the Husband.
The Husband sent an e-mail to the Wife on the 14 July 2007. Amongst other things the Husband said “I am not working”. The Husband contended that he meant to convey that neither of the parties had an income and he certainly was not intending to convey that he would not be continuing to take steps to generate income or identify opportunities to do so.
The Wife contends that despite Order 3 made on 13 March 2007 the Husband has failed to comply with the order requiring him to advise her by email 14 days prior to his departure from Australia of his departure and return dates into Australia. The Wife contends that despite requests in writing by her solicitor on 13 July 2007 and 17 July 2007 to the Husbands solicitor to provide the particulars required of the Husband’s departure and return dates, the Husband has failed or otherwise refused to do so.
On 15 July 2007 the Wife’s solicitor wrote to the Husband’s solicitor seeking details in relation to the financial circumstances of the Husband. The request is extensive and included information and documents in relation to various named entities and assets. It also made reference to previous requests for information and documents. An order was subsequently made that the Husband respond to the letter by 17 August 2007 and the Husband deposed that he will comply with the order in due course.
On 17 July 2007 the solicitors for the Wife wrote to the solicitors for the Husband and amongst other things complained about the lack of disclosure by the Husband. A request was made that the conciliation conference be adjourned.
On 20 July 2007 a response to an application for final orders was filed on behalf of the Wife.
On 20 July 2007 a registrar made an order that by 17 August 2007 the Husband provide a response and documents as sought by the Wife in the letter of 15 July 2007 from her solicitor to the solicitors for the Husband.
On 26 July 2007 an application in a case was filed on behalf of the Wife. On 27 July 2007 Judicial Registrar Loughnan made the following orders:
1.      The proceedings are adjourned to 10:00 am on 2 August 2007 before Judicial Registrar Loughnan.
2.      Orders are made in terms of the document titled “Orders” marked Exhibit 1 and attached hereto.
ORDERS (Exhibit 1)
ORDER PENDING FURTHER ORDER:
1.That the husband, […] in his capacity as the sole Director of the [Liatos] Group Pty Ltd in its capacity as the Trustee for the [A] Property Trust not do any act or thing that would have the effect of completing the sale of the property situate at and known as [the A Property] before August 7^th, 2007.
2.That the husband by either himself, his servants or his agents not do any act or thing or sign any documents that would have the effect of causing the completion of the [A] property before the 7^th of August 2007.
3.That the husband shall not resign as a Director or cause any other person to be appointed as a Director of the [Liatos] Group Pty Ltd without first giving written notice to the wife at least 14 days prior to the husband undertaking such action.
4.For the purposes of written notice, the wife’s address is Mr Ovid Prosilis, […].
5.That the husband not further mortgage or otherwise encumber the [A] property without first giving the wife 14 days written notice of intention to do so, such notice to be sent to Prosilis Lawyers at the address in Order 3 herein.
3.      The orders made today are made on the usual Undertaking by the wife as to damages marked Exhibit 2.
4.      Any documents on which the husband seeks to rely on in these interim proceedings are to be provided to the applicant by 6:00 pm on Wednesday, 1 August 2007.
The Husband returned to Australia on 29 July 2007 and he contends that this was after being informed of the Wife’s application. He contends that after his solicitor was served with the Wife’s urgent application he immediately returned to Australia so as to ensure that the parties financial position was protected. He contends that he is concerned that the loans from Suncorp Metway and J Capital Ltd if not paid could result in the parties not having any assets.
On 31 July 2007 an application in a case was filed on behalf of the Wife. On 31 July 2007 a Registrar granted the Wife leave to serve short notice of the application and listed the matter on 2 August 2007. The Registrar refused to make the orders sought in the application on an exparte basis. On 31 July 2007 an application for review of the orders made by the Registrar on that day was made by the Wife and it came before Steele J. His Honour made the following orders until further order:
1.      That the orders made earlier today by Registrar Cameron be confirmed.
2.      That the Husband be restrained from leaving Australia prior to 3 August 2007.
3.      That a copy of these orders be served on the Husband no later than 12 pm on 1 August 2007.
On 31 July 2007 Steele J noted that counsel for the Wife contended that the case involved assets of some €480,000,000 and that when the Husband was served with the affidavits there was real concern he would immediately leave the country because of some of the contents of the affidavits and in particular, those dealing with the forgery of documents. It was submitted that it was against this risk of the Husband leaving the country that the Wife sought to be protected. His Honour said that in those circumstances upon an undertaking by the Wife as to damages he made the orders that I have identified.
On 1 August 2007 the Wife’s solicitor wrote to the Husband’s solicitor and advised amongst other things that there were approximately 30,000 pages of documents and further he would not deliver the documents to the Husband but that the Husband could have access to them.
On 1 August 2007 the Husband’s solicitor was served with the further urgent application seeking that the Husband be restrained from leaving Australia. In his affidavit of 9 August 2007 the Husband deposed that he wishes to “explore business opportunities overseas as I have in the past”. He went on to say that “This is largely how I have earned an income [emphasis mine] other than property development within Australia”. I assume that what he said will be explored. He deposed that he “fully” intends to return to Australia. He deposed that his daughters are here, his father lives here, he was born here and he has regarded Australia as his place of residence throughout his adult life.
The matter then became before Judicial Registrar Loughnan on 2 August 2007 and he made the following orders:
1.      The proceedings are adjourned as a reserve matter before His Honour Justice O’Ryan on Thursday, 9 August 2007.
2.      Until further order, orders are made in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the document titled “Minute of order” marked Exhibit 1 and attached hereto AND the Court noted the matter at paragraph 4.
3.      Leave to the parties to approach the Listing Manager as they may be advised in relation to securing any other or further dates before the Court AND the Court noted the estimate for hearing the interlocutory applications is one day.
4.      The parties are to attend for family dispute resolution by arrangement with the Manager Child Dispute Services AND the Court noted the wife would prefer to have a separate appointment.
5.      The proceedings are referred to the Case Management Judge for consideration as a complex matter.
6. Pursuant to Section 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 an Independent Children’s Lawyer be appointed for the children […] born […] March 1996 and […] born […] August 2000.
7.      The Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales is requested to make arrangements as soon as possible for appropriate representation for the children.
8.      The solicitor for the mother is to advise the Senior Solicitor, Family Law Litigation Section of the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales of this order within 7 days.
9.      In the event there are interim proceedings the parties are to provide copies of all relevant applications and affidavits to the Independent Children's Lawyer upon the filing and service of those documents.
10.     The mother is to facilitate the children attending upon their representative at times, dates and places requested by their representative.
Exhibit 1
1.      That the husband in this capacity as the sole director of the [Liatos] Group Pty Limited as trustee for the [A] Property Trust cause the proceeds of sale of the property at [A] on completion to be paid in the following priority:
1.1in payment of any agents commission;
1.2in payment of the conveyancing costs and disbursements;
1.3in discharge of the mortgage to Suncorp Ltd;
1.4in payment of any statutory charges including any possible GST paid in addition to the purchase price;
1.5in payment of the balance to an interest bearing controlled monies account in the names of the solicitors for the husband and the wife.
2.      That the husband be restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia;
3.      That the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police take all necessary steps to immediately place the names used by the husband on the Airport Watch List known as the P.A.S.S. system at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia namely:
(a)[…] born […] 1969;
(b)[…]
(c)[…]
(d)[…]
(e)[…]
(f)[…]
4.      That the wife’s undertaking as to damages given 27 July 2007 be extended to J Capital Limited Hong Kong.
5.      That each of the husband and the wife serve the solicitors for J Capital Limited with copies of their respective Application, Response, Financial Statements and any relevant affidavits by 4 p.m. Friday 3 August 2007.
6.      That the wife make available for inspection by the solicitors for the husband and J Capital Limited all documents in her possession, custody or control on Monday 6 August 2007 at time to be arranged between the solicitors for the parties at the offices of the wife’s solicitors at ….

On 6 August 2007 the Husband attended the offices of the Wife’s solicitors and he noted that there were in excess of 30 cardboard boxes each with a number of files in them, they being files relating to his business records. He spent approximately two hours there with his solicitor. The Husband contends that he did not have an opportunity to look at all the files however from the documents he inspected he noted that there had been a substantial rearranging of the files with documents that ought to have been on some files being found in files where they did not belong. He took the view that not only would he be required to inspect the files but he would be required to sort out files so as to prepare his case, a task which he contends is extremely daunting and time consuming especially when as is alleged there are in excess of 30,000 pages held in the boxes. The Husband contends that he is concerned as to the cost involved in both his legal advisor and he traveling to the wife’s solicitors office which is outside the Sydney CBD to inspect the documents and further to arrange documents in an order that would enable him to inspect them properly so as to respond to the various paragraphs of the Wife’s affidavit. The Husband contends that at the time of leaving the documents in the garage, the documents were colour coded for easy identification and each file contained material relevant to that entity. The Husband contends that the files allowed to be inspected had documents that did not relate to the particular files which the Husband and his solicitor were inspecting and this is despite the Husband being meticulous in his record keeping and ensuring that only documents relating to relevant files were placed on those files. The Husband contends that as a result he has been hindered in addressing a lot of the issues that the Wife has raised in her affidavit and therefore he placed before the Court at this stage “a general explanation”.
P H swore an affidavit on 8 August 2007. He made a number of references to what he called the false and absurd statements by the Wife. P H also gave evidence about a business plan that involves a 30 year lease of land in Greece for the installation of 6,000 square meters of solar panels producing annually 950,000 KW. He said that a company has been incorporated called GPP with the sole purpose of energy production, leased land for 30 years and paid for studies etc. The shareholders of this new company are S H, P H and a cousin. P H contends that J Capital Ltd has provided this new company with a proposal dated 30 July 2007 to facilitate funds required and the offer was accepted by the manager of the company being S H on 31 July 2007. The offer is for long term funding of €845,000 and short term funding of €2,535,000. P H said that these funds are meant to come from the A and B property investments. I note that there is no evidence about the realization of the B property. In any event P H contends that “…if the Family Court in any way stalls the distribution of funds from the settlement, even for a week, we will suffer damages of over €5 million in opportunity foregone and expenses”.
On 9 August 2007 a response was filed on behalf the Second Respondent.
On 9 August 2007 a response was filed on behalf of the Husband.
There were various other entities dealt with in the evidence such as the B Property Trust, the Liatos Group Facilities Trust, the D H Management Services Trust, the D Property Trust and EM Pty Ltd. However at this stage I do not need to consider such entities. There were also various other assets dealt with such as land in Europe and assets which the Husband contends belong to Mr AB and again at this stage I do not need to consider such assets.

Relevant principles

The Wife sought and obtained on an ex parte basis interim injunctions. The Wife is now seeking interlocutory injunctions. She is seeking injunctions before the final determination of the rights of the parties. The purpose is to maintain the status quo between the parties pending the hearing of the applications for final orders.
The test to be applied is set out in s 114(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) being that “A court…may grant an injunction…in any case in which it is just or convenient to do so…”. As the Full Court said in Mullen and De Bry (2006) FLC 93-293: “Ultimately, each case will involve an overall assessment of a number of factors to determine the just or convenient result. Not all cases with the same identity of factors will necessarily produce the same result because of varying weight individually and comparatively”.
An interlocutory injunction is proper if there is a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience between the parties favours an injunction. However I am not conducting a preliminary trial or pre-empting the final decision in the property settlement proceedings. I am not at this stage resolving any questions of law or conflicts on the evidence: American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 at 407 per Lord Diplock. I am unable to make a decision on the final merits of the case of each party and am being asked to decide whether to make an interlocutory order to govern the position of the parties pending the final determination of their rights.
In considering the applications I have to consider the strength of the Wife’s case as a matter of fact and law; next whether damages at law provide an adequate remedy and next the balance of convenience. The Wife has to demonstrate that there is a serious question of fact or law that ought to be tried: Patrick Stevedores v MUA [1998] 195 CLR 1 at 24. When considering the balance of convenience I have to consider such matters as whether irreparable harm to the Wife would be suffered if an injunction was not granted, the relative hardships that the parties may experience; the undertaking by the Wife as to damages and the impossibility or futility of performance.
The Wife is seeking orders in relation to the preservation of property and there is no issue that I have the jurisdiction and power to make such orders: see Chpt 14 of the Family Law Rules. The Wife is seeking orders for the purpose of ensuring that assets are preserved and the integrity of the court process is upheld: Mareva Compania Naveriera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA (The Mareva) [1980] 1 All ER 213; Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612; Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380, Waugh and Waugh (2000) FLC 93-052 and Mullen and De Bry (supra).
What has to be established is that there is a risk or danger of the removal of assets from the jurisdiction with the intention of defeating the Court’s process. I observe that in Mullen and De Bry (supra) the Full Court said that “when a respondent is within the jurisdiction, relevant to the risk of defeat of an ultimate order is the presence of a legislative scheme which enables a tracing and, in appropriate cases, a reversion of transactions. The absence of power and jurisdiction to unpick the likely result of any scheme that may exist, where a respondent resides offshore, is pertinent to the risk”.
The Wife is also seeking orders in relation to the restraint of the Husband from leaving the jurisdiction of the Family Court and again there is no issue that I have the jurisdiction and power to make such orders.
Although I must proceed with caution I have the jurisdiction and power to make an asset preservation order against a third party: Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (supra). However in such circumstances an undertaking as to damages becomes more important and may be essential. Further discretionary matters such as whether there are independent proceedings against the third party may have to be considered.
An interim injunction may be sought exparte as a matter of urgency where some imminent damage to the rights of the applicant is anticipated. If an exparte application is made then the applicant is under an obligation to make a full and frank disclosure of all the material facts Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679 per Isaacs J at 681. This obligation includes facts that are unfavourable to the applicants’ case. Where the application is made in the absence of the other party the burden on the applicant is increased. Materiality is to be determined by the judge hearing the application and not by the applicant or his or her legal advisers. The applicant must make proper enquiries before making the application and hence the duty of disclosure includes material facts known to the applicant and material facts that would have been known had proper enquiries been made. The consequences where the applicant has not complied with the duty of full and frank disclosure are serious. The Court has a discretion regarding the order to be made where there is a lack of full and frank disclosure. It may be appropriate to discharge the order obtained immediately. Alternatively a court may continue the order or make a new order on terms, including an order as to costs. However, ordinarily an injunction obtained exparte will be dissolved or set aside upon proof that the applicant was guilty of a substantial non disclosure. Where an exparte injunction has been dissolved an applicant is at liberty to make a fresh application.

Conclusion

The orders made by Judicial Registrar Loughnan on 27 July 2007 and those made by Steele J on 31 July 2007 are no longer relevant. The current relevant orders are those made by Judicial Registrar Loughnan on 2 August 2007. However it is clear that he made those orders as interim orders because on 2 August 2007 he also made orders for the hearing of the applications of the Wife.
I have already set out a number of the contentions of all parties.
On behalf of the Wife it was submitted that I would be satisfied that she has established a strong prima facie case that funds including the purported loan from J Capital Ltd to the Liatos Family Trust are funds of which the Husband or entities controlled by him is or are the beneficial owners. It was submitted that there is prima facie evidence that despite the Husband’s denials, his interests overseas are not limited to the properties he concedes but rather far more significant.
On behalf of the Wife it was submitted that the Husband has since the parties’ separated, resided primarily in Greece. J Capital Ltd is a non-resident company apparently owned by a trust which is resident “in a well-known tax haven”. It was submitted that P H, the alleged trustee of the E Settlement, resides outside the jurisdiction.
On behalf of the Wife it was submitted that the Husband claims presently to have no income yet documents variously produced on his behalf have in recent years asserted an income in excess of $500,000 and in one case of the order of $1,500,000 per annum.
It was submitted that all the requirements for the granting of the orders sought by the Wife are met and the existing orders should be continued.
At this stage of the property settlement proceedings I am of the view that the major area of inquiry will be what is sometimes identified as step one of the preferred approach to the determination of property settlement applications namely the extent and value of the assets of the parties: Hickey and Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143. The Wife contends that it is not known what is the extent of the net assets of the parties and this may be found to be very significant and far in excess of what the Husband contends namely $7,630,000. The determination of this issue will require consideration of various overseas resident entities and assets located overseas and whether they are owned and controlled by the Husband or he has an interest in them which he has not disclosed. This will require consideration of a number of the entities, assets and transactions that I have already identified. It will require consideration of the interests of third parties such as the late D H and now P H and perhaps other individuals such as the “investors”.
Taking into account all of the evidence I have described I am satisfied that there are serious questions to be tried in relation to the step one and in particular whether funds including the purported loan from J Capital Ltd to the Liatos Family Trust are funds of which the Husband or entities controlled by him is or are the beneficial owners or have a significant interest in. Senior counsel for the Husband conceded that there may be material on which a serious issue arises for trial.
If the sale of the A land is completed and there are no injunctions in relation to the status quo then in excess of $2,300,000 will be transferred overseas and according to P H it will be invested in a project in Greece. The amount of $2,300,000 will be outside the jurisdiction of the court. If the Wife succeeds in establishing that the net assets have a value greater that what the Husband contends then the amounts transferred could not be recovered and an order of the court may be defeated. I also take into account that for reasons I will hereafter give the Husband will not be restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia.
If the injunction was granted then it is difficult to see what prejudice there would be to the Husband as he contends that the funds are not his.
As to the interests of the Second Respondent the Wife is prepared to give an undertaking as to damages and I am satisfied that such an undertaking is relevant. If the Wife fails to establish what she contends then even on the Husband’s case the Wife would receive an entitlement of a net value of perhaps $3,245,000. I am of the view having regard to the net assets that are within the jurisdiction, and the outcome which even the Husband seeks, that the Wife is able to provide such an undertaking. In reaching this conclusion I have taken in to account the untested evidence of P H.
As to the injunction restraining the Husband from leaving Australia there are some matters that are of concern. The Husband has spent a considerable amount of time overseas in recent years. He has also said that he proposes to reside overseas and pursue business opportunities. As I have already referred to in his affidavit of 9 August 2007 the Husband deposed that he wishes to “explore business opportunities overseas as I have in the past” and went on to say that “This is largely how I have earned an income other than property development within Australia”. There are deficiencies in the Husband’s evidence and they include the following. The Husband has given no evidence explaining where he was and what he was doing during the significant periods he has been overseas. The Husband has given no evidence about what income he had and/or what his expenses were and/or the source of funds to pay his expenses. According to his evidence, and the tax returns that I have seen, he has no bank account overseas. The Husband has also given no satisfactory evidence explaining what he is proposing to do. The Husband has made some very broad and unverified allegations about his future and I accept that at the final hearing he may have to provide more evidence. The deficiencies in the Husband’s evidence regarding his future was accepted by his senior counsel. The Wife also contends that the issue of forgery is relevant as the Husband may not seek to have that issue adjudicated upon because of the possible consequences of a finding adverse to the Husband.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies I have identified the Husband contends that he proposes in person to participate in the proceedings. The Husband also seeks to continue to spend time in Australia on a face to face basis with his children. He is not seeking any order in relation to spending time with the children out of Australia. The Husband said that he has family in Australia. The Husband also has assets in Australia. If the Greek properties and the liabilities alleged to be owed to the Second Respondent are excluded then according to the Husband the parties have ascertained assets within the jurisdiction of about $8,970,000 net or perhaps more if the Husband’s superannuation is included.
In summary, I accept that there are a number of significant issues about the future of the Husband. However on the evidence presently before me and on the basis that no further funds are transferred overseas pending the final hearing I am not satisfied that the order sought by the Wife should be made. The balance of convenience favours the Husband.
Notwithstanding what was said in the March 2007 draft affidavit, the failure by the Wife to refer to this draft affidavit, the failure of the Wife to refer in the draft affidavit to some of what is in her current evidence such as conversations she contends the parties had and the inferences that may be drawn as to what the Wife contends she discovered in late June 2007 when she inspected various documents that the Wife either before Judicial Registrar Loughnan or Steel J or in the current proceedings has failed to make material non disclosures. There may be some matters that the Wife is cross examined on at the final hearing but I do not accept that I have been misled either in what is said in support of the application or as to what is left unsaid.
As to the absence of any current final orders sought against the Second Respondent I am of the view that this is not fatal to the relief sought by the Wife so far as it effects the interests of the Second Respondent. There is an issue as to the ownership of a portion of the net proceeds of sale of the A land or put another way there is an issue as to whether the Husband has an interest in J Capital Ltd or in the funds that this company contends are owed to it. I accept that as some point the Wife will have to articulate the final relief she seeks and in so doing she may seek relief directed against the Second Respondent.
I have come to the conclusion that until the determination of the property settlement proceedings no funds should be remitted overseas to J Capital Ltd and thus the amount that the Husband and others contend is to be paid to J Capital Ltd from the investment in the A project should be retained in this jurisdiction. I am going to make an order that on completion of the sale of the A project after the payment of costs of sale and the amount required to discharge the mortgage to Suncorp Metway the balance be paid into a controlled moneys account.
I am going to order that until compliance with the above order the Husband be restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia. Upon the investment of the net proceeds of sale of the A land the Husband is at liberty to leave Australia. I understand that completion of the sale can affectively take place now.
I am not making an order in relation to dealing with the B property as no order was sought by the Wife and no evidence given by the Husband that it is proposed to sell or in any way deal with the property. Thus the injunctions I will make are on the basis that the status quo will be maintained in relation to the B property.

I certify that the preceding 307 paragraphs are
a true copy of the reasons for judgment
of the Honourable Justice O’Ryan

………………………………………………………..
Associate:
Date: 28 August 2007