Mathews & Mathews (No 2)

[2025] FedCFamC2F 1030

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Mathews & Mathews (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1030

File number(s):	SYC 366 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE STREET
Date of judgment:	25 July 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – removal of shareholder as party.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	5
Date of last submission/s:	25 July 2025
Date of hearing:	25 July 2025
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr A Ahmed
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Holmes Donnelly & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent:	The respondent appeared via visual/audio link

ORDERS

SYC 366 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS MATHEWS

Applicant

AND:

MR MATHEWS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:	25 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Mr B is removed as the second respondent to these proceedings.

2.All existing orders against Mr B are vacated.

3.The amended application for final orders filed on 25 July 2025 is struck out.

4.The Court grants leave to the applicant to file and serve an amended application between the parties within seven (7) days.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE STREET

1. These are property proceedings that were commenced by the wife (“the wife”) on 22 January 2024 and which purported to join as a second respondent Mr B (“Mr B”) in circumstances where relief was alleged that Mr B holds one ordinary share in C Pty Ltd on trust for the sole benefit of the first respondent husband (“the husband”). The Court, on 18 July 2025, when the matter came before it in relation to objections to subpoenas, raised why it was that Mr B was a party to the proceedings in circumstances where, whether there was a trust or not, was a matter that could be determined in the context of the property dispute between the wife and the husband, and that the Court could see no proper basis for the joinder of the shareholder.

2. Since that date, there has been filed in the Court, on 25 July 2025, a purported amended application, which still keeps, in the proceedings, Mr B and seeks various orders in relation to the corporate entity that is not a party to these proceedings. Mr B, as a shareholder, does not represent the corporate entity. The Court does not accept the propositions advanced by counsel on behalf of the wife that Mr B was a necessary or proper party to the proceedings, either at the time they were commenced or in relation to the current amended application.

3. There might have been an argument, potentially, for the joinder of a corporate entity;  however, that has not occurred, and the Court has not proposed to permit continuing applications for amendment of the application for final orders. Nothing said by counsel identified any proper basis on which it could be said that the shareholder needed to be joined to these proceedings.  Taking the Court to the balance sheet did not advance in any way the justification for joining a shareholder in the company. What the Court may find to be the relationship between the husband and the wife in respect of the contested property is a matter that this Court can deal with.

4. If there is other conduct that has taken place that engages entitlements of a shareholder to pursue action for oppression or otherwise, that is not a matter which is an associated matter or necessary for this Court to determine. It is not appropriate or necessary for determining the parties' property interests in relation to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to have Mr B as a party to the proceedings. Mr B should not have been joined to them, and he should not have been joined in the purported amended application, which the Court proposes to strike out and give an opportunity to file a further amended application between the remaining parties.

5. It is for these reasons that the Court makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex-Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.

Associate:

Dated:       30 July 2025