Lllewellyn-Reilly and Reilly

This matter concerned an application before Johns J in which the Wife sought leave to institute property proceedings out of time pursuant to Section 44(3) of the relevant Act. The dispute also involved orders concerning the children, including a restraint on the Wife’s father supervising them unsupervised, and significant child support obligations for the Husband. Additionally, the Wife sought orders relating to the Husband’s property dealings and the disclosure of financial information.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether to grant the Wife leave to commence property proceedings out of time. The court also had to consider and make orders regarding the variation of child support payments, the provision of health insurance and dental costs for the children, and the payment of educational and extracurricular expenses. Furthermore, the court was tasked with making orders concerning the Husband's financial obligations in relation to a motor vehicle leased by the Wife, and to restrain the Husband from dealing with his property outside the ordinary course of business. The court also needed to establish a framework for the disclosure of financial documents and the valuation of the Husband's business interests.

The court made orders by consent, granting the Wife leave to institute property proceedings out of time. The Husband was ordered to pay varied child support amounts, health insurance premiums, dental and orthodontic costs, counselling and mobile phone expenses for the children, and all school-related costs. The Husband was also ordered to pay for and indemnify the Wife regarding a motor vehicle lease, registration, and insurance. Crucially, the Husband was restrained from dealing with his property except in the ordinary course of business. The court also mandated the disclosure of financial documents by the Husband and his advisors, and established a process for the independent valuation of the Husband's business interests if the parties could not agree on their value. Interim applications were dismissed, and the requirement for a conciliation conference was dispensed with in favour of private mediation.