Ming & Dao

In the matter of Ming & Dao, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered two interlocutory applications. The first application sought a litigation funding order, pressed on alternative bases as either a property settlement or a costs order. The second application concerned the payment of single expert fees, with the applicant seeking that the respondent bear the initial costs of any single expert appointed.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to a litigation funding order, considering their capacity to meet their own legal costs and the absence of persuasive reasons to fragment the exercise of power under Part VIII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Additionally, the court had to decide on the allocation of responsibility for the fees of single expert witnesses, particularly in light of the respondent's superior financial position and the imperative nature of expert valuations for the respondent's corporate structure.

Regarding the litigation funding order, Austin J found that the applicant had the financial capacity to meet their own legal costs and that the application lacked merit, particularly in light of the factors prescribed by s 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Consequently, this application was dismissed. However, concerning the single expert fees, the court acknowledged the respondent's superior financial position and the necessity of expert valuations for the respondent's corporate interests. Therefore, the court ordered that the respondent shall pay the costs of all retained single experts in the first instance.

The court made several consent orders, including amendments to the instructions for a single expert valuing corporate interests, requiring the valuation date to be current as at 30 June 2020, and setting a deadline for the provision of financial reports. The wife was restrained from entering into arrangements with the Australian Taxation Office or closing hospitality businesses without prior notice to the husband, subject to the husband providing an undertaking as to damages. The parties were ordered to sell a specified property, with proceeds to cover sale costs and discharge the mortgage. The wife was made responsible in the first instance for all single expert witness costs, with ultimate responsibility reserved for trial. The interlocutory applications were dismissed, and no order was made as to costs. A notation clarified the entitlement to the net proceeds of sale of the Suburb B property.