Pratley and Pratley

[2020] FamCA 701

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRATLEY & PRATLEY [2020] FamCA 701

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – preservation of property – where the Wife seeks to rely upon the continuance of injunctive order restraining the sale of the business – where the Husband seeks the discharge of the injunction to effect the sale of the business – where the respondent seeks an order permitting sale of business – Injunction  discharged – order for sale of business – order for the sale of real estate properties – Disclosure schedule to be maintained to deal with anticipated disputes as to disclosure.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 106A
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.04

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd and Ors v Maritime Union of Australia and Ors (1998) 195 CLR 1

APPLICANT: Ms Pratley

RESPONDENT: Mr Pratley

FILE NUMBER: CAC 298 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 26 August 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 20 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Haddock

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hijazi Curran Cameron Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Kearney, SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Farrar Gesini Dunn

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

Sale of business

1. That Order 4 of the Orders made on 26 February 2019 is discharged.  

2. That the parties forthwith do and sign all things necessary to effect the sale of the business known and trading as C Business (ABN …) (the Business and that sale referred to as the Business Sale).

3. For the sake of clarity the Business Sale is to effect the sale of:

   (a)       Any plant and equipment of the Business;

   (b)       The customer list of the Business;

   (c)       Any goodwill of the Business.

4. That for the purposes of the Business Sale:

   (a)The parties engage Mr G of K Valuers as the selling agent to conduct the Business Sale (the Agent);

   (b)The parties engage M Lawyers to act on the Business Sale (the Solicitors);

   (c)The listing price of the Business be as agreed between the Husband and Wife or failing agreement within a reasonable timeframe, as recommended by the Agent;

   (d)The terms and conditions of the sale shall be as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement within a reasonable timeframe, as recommended by the Agent;

   (e)The Husband and Wife shall cooperate in every way with the Agent and the Solicitors in relation to the Business Sale including making the books available for an inspection at times requested by the Agent and providing access and information to the Agent and/or the Solicitors in a timely and helpful manner;

   (f)Each party shall sign any document reasonably required to give effect to these Orders within three business days of being requested to do so by the other party, the Agent, or the Solicitors.

5. The parties are to cause the proceeds of sale of the Business to be paid as follows:

   (a)       To pay all of the costs of the Business Sale;

   (b)To pay the balance into a controlled monies account in the joint names of the parties, such account to be managed by the Solicitors (the Sale Balance).

Winding Up of B Pty Ltd

1. That as soon as possible after the settlement of the sale of the Business and within seven days of same, the parties are to do and sign all things necessary to appoint Mr L of N Firm (the Liquidator) to wind up the company B Pty Ltd (ACN …) (B Pty Ltd and that process referred to as the Wind Up).

2. That the parties shall, in the course of complying with Order 6, instruct the Liquidator to :

   (a)Calculate the taxation liability of either party personally arising from the Wind Up; and

   (b)By virtue of this Order, the parties authorise the Liquidator to contact B Pty Ltd's accountant (or another accountant as nominated by the Liquidator) and seek information required by the Liquidator or the purpose of calculating the taxation liability.

3. That for the purposes of the Wind Up:

   (a)The parties are to comply with any reasonable requests of the Liquidator, including providing any necessary available information or documentation requested by the Liquidator.

4. That the Accountant's costs be met from residual funds in B Pty Ltd and any shortfall be met from the Sale Balance.

Sale of Real Estate Properties

1. That the parties do all things necessary to effect the sale of the following properties:

   (a)1 Q Street, Suburb S;

   (b)R Street, Suburb S; (collectively referred to as the Properties).

2. The parties are to list the Properties for sale forthwith.

3. That for the purposes of the sale of the Properties:

   (a)The Wife is to provide the Husband a list of three agents for the sale within 14 days of the date of these Orders, providing with that list a letter from each that he or she is prepared to act on the sale, his or her estimated fees on the sale, and whether there is a pre-existing relationship that compromises his or her capacity to act independently;

   (b)Within a further seven days the Husband is to nominate which of those three agents is to act on the sale (the Real Estate Agent);

   (c)The parties appoint M Lawyers as the conveyancing solicitors (the Real Estate Solicitors);

   (d)Failing agreement between them, the parties accept the advice of the Real Estate Agent as to the method of sale;

   (e)The parties cooperate in every way with the Real Estate Agent and the Real Estate Solicitors in relation to the sale of the Properties, in a timely and helpful manner;

   (f)The listing price of the Properties be as agreed between the Husband and Wife or failing agreement within a reasonable timeframe, as recommended by the Real Estate Agent;

   (g)The terms and conditions of the sale shall be as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement within a reasonable timeframe, as recommended by the Real Estate Agent.

4. The parties cause the proceeds of sale of the Properties or either of them to be paid as follows:

   (a)To pay the sale costs;

   (b)To pay the usual rates adjustments;

   (c)To pay the minimal amount required to discharge any mortgage secured on the title of the properties or either of them;

   (d)To pay the balance into a controlled monies account in the joint names of the parties such account to be managed by the Real Estate Solicitors.

5. That the time limits, procedural clauses and the terms and conditions imposed by these Orders may be varied by the parties by written agreement.

6. That liberty be reserved to either party to apply to the Court on short notice with respect to the Business Sale, the Wind Up, or the sale of the Properties.

7. That if either party refuses, fails or neglects to execute any document necessary to put these Orders into effect 14 days after being requested to do so, and any such refusal, failure or neglect is proved by Affidavits filed and served by or on behalf of the party alleging this, the Registrar of the Family Court at Canberra be and is hereby appointed pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 to execute such document in the name of such party.

Disclosure

1. The parties are each to compile and maintain a current schedule of the documents that they have produced to the other party for disclosure, identifying the documents (or class of document produced where the documents are too voluminous to be described individually), along with the date of disclosure and mode of disclosure of the document.

2. A party’s updated schedule is to be provided to the other party on each occasion of disclosure.

3. If directed to do so, a party’s schedule is to be filed at Court.

Other matters

1. The Application in a case filed by the Husband on 8 July 2020, and the Response to an Application in a Case filed by the Wife on 4 August 2020 are otherwise dismissed save as to costs.

Costs

1. In the event that a party seeks costs in relation to this application, that party is to file written submissions in support of such within 14 days of the date of these Orders.

2. Should a party not file such submissions, then that party shall be taken to have not pressed an application for costs and such application will be dismissed.

3. In the event that a party files submissions as set out above, any party resisting costs shall file written submissions in response within a further 14 days of the date of these orders.

4. The costs of these proceedings will then be determined on the basis of those written submissions, in chambers, unless a party or the Court notifies that further oral address is required. 

5. Pursuant to r 19.04 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), the next time the matter is listed before the Registrar or the Court will be designated a court event for the notification of costs.

6. The matter is transferred to the Registrar’s list pending further application or the listing of the trial date.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Pratley & Pratley has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 298 of 2019

Ms Pratley

Applicant

And

Mr Pratley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings concern financial arrangements between the parties pending final resolution of the proceedings.

2. Those financial arrangements are currently regulated by orders put into place by Judge Tonkin on 26 February 2019.  In particular, those orders provided restrictions in the Husband’s dealings with the F business previously operated by the parties together, and the release of the Wife from particular obligations associated with that business.

3. The Husband seeks release from those restraints, and for orders to be made facilitating the sale of the business, along with orders permitting the sale of two pieces of real estate.

4. The key factual issue is that, although the Husband was operating the business at the time of the making of orders by Judge Tonkin, and had indicated an intent to continue to do so following property settlement, he now says that he does not wish to retain the business.  The Wife, similarly, does not wish to retain the business.  Neither wishes to retain the two blocks of land that the Husband seeks to be sold.

5. The Wife opposes the sale of the business and the sale of the two blocks of land, and seeks orders for the valuation of the business and the parcels of land to be retained (although at hearing she sensibly deferred the valuation issue to be dealt with more proximately to the trial), along with orders in relation to disclosure, and orders in relation to the provision of a car to herself.

6. It should be noted that the parties are in agreement that Mr T will ultimately be appointed as the valuer for the properties that the parties seek to retain. They agreed that this was a matter to be deferred and it is ultimately a matter that they can attend to closer to a trial date, and by agreement, without the need for court intervention.

7. The pursuit, although deferred, of valuation of the business follows a previous contested valuation.  It was uncontroversial that the initial valuation was incomplete.  The pursuit of valuation indicates that, whatever orders are to be ultimately made in relation to the business, what is sought is a division of the worth of the business.

8. The parties approached the matter on the basis that, ultimately, an order adjusting their property interests should be made.

The injunctions related to the business

1. There has been a fundamental change since the granting of the injunctive relief in respect of the business.  Rather than the Husband desiring to retain the business, and operating the business pending resolution of the dispute, now neither party seeks to retain the business.  That renders the sale of the business, at some stage inevitable.  That raises the question of the utility of valuation of the business.  The necessity of valuation arises in the event that the business remains in the hands of the parties.  It is a mechanism by which an estimate is made by the court of the worth of the business so that an adjustment in property may be made that is just and equitable.

2. The Husband pointed to the relative undesirability of relying upon an estimate, as opposed to the real value as established by the disposal of the business.

3. The ongoing restraint of the Husband, preventing a disposal of the business by means of injunction, requires circumstances to justify it.  The circumstance pointed to by the Wife is the desirability of maintaining the pool of property so that it may fully be the subject of division between the parties without degradation. 

4. The Wife, in her material, identified three potential sources of degradation.  The first alleged that the Husband, who is currently operating the business intends to run down the business and, allied to that, he is deficient in his capacity to operate the business.  The second is the allegation that the Husband will value shift from the current business into a business that he is operating, syphoning business and payments out of the old business, thereby reducing its worth.  The third matter raised by the Wife was her assertion that, should it become known that the business is for sale, other businesses will prey upon both the clientele and employees of the business, taking both from the business and thereby diminishing its value.

5. The difficulty with these asserted risks as put forward to justify the injunction remaining was identified by the Husband.  Each of the risks points away from a continuing injunction that, as a matter of practicality, compels the Husband to continue to operate the business.  If the Husband presents the risks as asserted by the Wife, those risks continue whilst the Husband is given an extended opportunity to run the business.  If sale presents the risk identified by the Wife, of the business being preyed upon by other businesses, that is a risk to the sale of the business that persists whether it is sold now or sold post property settlement.

6. That is, the Wife’s case is unpersuasive that the ongoing retention of the business is necessary to protect the worth of the pool to be divided between the parties.

7. A further issue against the maintenance of the injunction flows from what is its de facto use.  While the injunction in its current terms prohibits actions that alienate or diminish the business, those were made in the context of a willingness on the part of the Husband to continue to operate the business.  They are now being used to force him to continue to operate the business, despite containing no term that specifically provides for that obligation.  Whilst it was accepted that an injunction could be issued pursuant to s 114 that compels a person to continue a business, care should be taken where an order for such is made.  Orders of that nature are for specific performance for an indefinite period, calling potentially for the constant supervision of continued conduct, by the court, in a manner discouraged by the High Court in Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd and Ors v Maritime Union of Australia and Ors (1998) 195 CLR 1 at [78]. In this instance, compelling the Husband to continue the business was not in the apparent contemplation of the Court at the time of the making of the orders. Orders specifically fashioned for such a purpose should be approached warily. The Court should be even more cautious in retaining orders for such a purpose, when that was not their initial purpose.

8. That is even more apparent when it is observed that none of the terms of the injunction imposed by Judge Tonkin (understandably) require the Husband to operate the business.

9. Finally, sale of the business now does not prevent the Wife from prosecuting a case based in part upon the assertions that she makes that the Husband is running down the business and shifting the value of the business.  These were matters conceded by counsel for the Husband as being able to be taken into account pursuant to s 79(2)(o), and, should sale of the business take place now, be determined in the light of the results of such a sale.

10. At the hearing the Wife added to the risks of sale, submitting that there was further scope for the diminution of the pool, by virtue of the sale of the business being a removal of an income stream through which expenses are met.  The lack of that stream then results in those expenses being payable from the capital interests of the parties.  Accepting this, it is not sufficient to displace the balance of convenience matters raised in respect of the continuing injunction, where that balance of convenience requires a party to continue to operate the business.

11. It may then be observed that the justification put forward to retain the injunctions is not made out.  They are not protective against the primary risks identified by the Wife.  Further, the balance of convenience does not support their retention where that retention is designed to compel the Husband to operate the business.

12. The injunctions preventing the disposal of the business should be discharged.

13. In relation to the proposed manner of sale of the business, it may be observed that the Wife made no complaint in relation to the mechanisms or persons proposed by the Husband. 

14. The Husband provided evidence supporting the appropriateness of Mr G to undertake the sale of the business, and Mr L as liquidator.

15. Those mechanisms should be adopted.

Sale of properties

1. The next issue relates to the proposed sale of two properties, again being items that neither party seeks to retain.  The Wife opposed the sale of the properties, noting that they are at present tenanted.

2. Ultimately, as neither party seeks to retain the properties, they will form part of an adjustment based on their worth.  That worth is either to be ascertained by estimate, with its inherent uncertainties, or by their sale.  Their sale is more supportive of a just and equitable resolution based on their actual value, than retention and valuation.  It should be observed that there is nothing to identify that their retention to the trial is a better step in the preservation of the pool, while their sale facilitates the resolution of the issues between the parties.

3. The properties should be sold.

4. The parties are however at odds as to who the listing agent should be.  A particular difficulty arises by virtue of their involvement in the industry, which makes it difficult for either to identify agents that the other agrees to be independent.

5. The Husband nominates Mr V.  The Husband provided correspondence from Mr V, wherein he asserted that he was prepared to act on the sales, qualified to do so, and did not believe that he had a relationship with either party that prevented him from acting independently in relation to the sale. 

6. The Wife opposes him as a friend of the Husband’s, and as employed by another F Franchise holder.

7. The Wife proposes Mr W as the agent, asserting that she does not have any business or personal dealing with him.  That proposal has likewise not been accepted by the Husband.

8. It is highly likely that each party will be dissatisfied with, or suspicious about, the other party’s selection.

9. Counsel for the Husband suggested as an alternative a ‘pick a pile’ approach whereby one party is required to make a set of nominations from whom the other party selects.  This appears to be the best manner to deal with this issue.  Orders will be made for the Wife to provide a list of three agents for the sale, providing with that list a letter from each that he or she is prepared to act on the sale, their estimated fees on the sale, and whether there is a pre-existing relationship that compromises their capacity to act independently.

Disclosure

1. The next matter concerns disclosure. The orders of Judge Tonkin provided for disclosure in a manner that requires no supplement by further orders.  However, it is apparent that there are disputes between the parties as to disclosure, some disclosure by the Husband coming significantly after he was requested to disclose, and only shortly before the hearing in front of me.

2. It is a matter of utmost importance that appropriate and ongoing disclosure occurs in this matter in the context where, pending the sale of the business one party is operating that business.  It appears highly likely that disclosure will be an ongoing and contentious issue.

3. Under those circumstances, both parties agreed to a regime being put into place to produce a schedule of discovered documents.

4. Further, a direction will be given that the parties are to comply with Rule 13.15 and provide an undertaking as to disclosure within 28 days of the making of these orders.

Car lease

1. Under the orders made by Judge Tonkin provision was made for the payment of a lease for the vehicle used by the Wife.  The lease on this vehicle has expired and the Wife seeks an order that allows the upgrade of this vehicle.  Such an upgrade was not contemplated in the orders made by Judge Tonkin.

2. While there might be good reason for an upgrade to take place, circumstances justifying such a step have not been identified.  It was properly characterised by the parties as being an aspect of the maintenance power at s 75 of the Act.  As observed by counsel for the Husband, circumstances justifying the use of the maintenance power were not established.

3. No order for the upgrade of the car should be made.

Expedition

1. The Wife sought expedition of the case.  While it is understandable that parties seek that a matter be heard earlier than the current delays in the Registry provide for (at present somewhere between two and three years from filing to final disposition), no matters were identified to justify this matter being given priority over the other matters in the list.

2. The matter will be transferred to the Registrar’s list pending further application or removal from that list in order to ready the matter for trial.  However, the parties will have liberty to relist the proceedings, particularly so in the context of the complexities of the sale of their business interests.

Costs

1. Each party sought costs.  Should a party pursue costs, then it will be necessary for that party to file written submissions within 14 days of the making of these orders in support of such.  If no party does so, the costs aspect of the interlocutory applications will be taken to have not been pressed.  Should such submissions be filed, then any party resisting costs will be required to file written submissions in response within a further 14 days.  The matter will then be determined on the basis of those written submissions in chambers unless notified that further oral address is required.

2. The next time the matter is listed either before the Registrar or the Court will be designated a court event for the notification of costs pursuant to Rule 19.04.

I certify that the preceding fourty-three (43) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 26 August 2020.

Associate: 

Date:  26 August 2020

Annexure 1

Orders Sought by Applicant Husband

Discharge Current Order

1. That Order 4 of the Orders made on 26 February 2019 be varied insofar as is necessary to permit compliance with the following Orders.

   Sale of Business

2. That the parties forthwith do and sign all things necessary to effect the sale of the business known and trading as C Business (ABN … (the Business and that sale referred to as the Business Sale).

3. For the sake of clarity the Business Sale is to effect the sale of:

   3.1 Any plant and equipment of the Business;

   3.2      The customer list of the Business;

   3.3 Any goodwill of the Business.

4. That for the purposes of the Business Sale :

   4.1 The parties engage Mr G of K Valuers as the selling agent to conduct the Business Sale (the Agent);

   4.2 The parties engage M Lawyers to act on the Business Sale (the Solicitors)

   4.3 The listing price of the Business be as agreed between the husband and wife or failing agreement within a reasonable timeframe, as recommended by the Agent;

   4.4 The terms and conditions of the sale shall be as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement within a reasonable timeframe, as recommended by the Agent;

   4. 5 The husband and wife shall cooperate in every way with the Agent and the Solicitors in relation to the Business Sale including making the books available for an inspection at times requested by the Agent and providing access and information to the Agent and/or the Solicitors in a timely and helpful manner;

   4.6      Each party shall sign any document reasonably required to give effect to these Orders within 3 business days of being requested to do so by the other party, the Agent, or the Solicitors.

5. The parties are to cause the proceeds of sale of the Business to be paid as follows:

   5.1      To pay all of the costs of the Business Sale;

   5.2 To pay the balance into a controlled monies account in the joint names of the parties, such account to be managed by the Solicitors (the Sale Balance).

   Winding Up of B Pty Ltd

6. That as soon as possible after the settlement of the sale of the Business and within 7 days of same, the parties are to do and sign all things necessary to appoint Mr L of N Firm (the Liquidator) to wind up the company B Pty Ltd (ACN …) (B Pty Ltd and that process referred to as the Wind Up).

7. That the parties shall , in the course of complying with Order 6 , instruct the Liquidator to :

   7.1 Calculate the taxation liability of either party personally arising from the Wind Up; and

   7.2 By virtue of this Order, the parties authorise the Liquidator to contact B Pty Ltd's accountant (or another accountant as nominated by the Liquidator) and seek information required by the Liquidator or the purpose of calculating the taxation liability.

8. That for the purposes of the Wind Up:

   8.1 The parties are to comply with any reasonable requests of the Liquidator, including providing any necessary available information or documentation requested by the Liquidator.

9. That the Accountant's costs be met from residual funds in B Pty Ltd and any shortfall be met from the Sale Balance.

   Sale of Real Estate Properties

10. That the parties do all things necessary to effect the sale of the following properties:

    10.1 1 Q Street, Suburb S;

    10.2 R Street, Suburb S; (collectively referred to as the Properties).

11. The parties are to list the Properties for sale forthwith.

12. That for the purposes of the sale of the Properties:

    12 .1   The parties appoint Mr V of X Business as the selling agent (the Real Estate Agent);

    12.2 The parties appoint M Lawyers as the conveyancing solicitors (the Real Estate Solicitors);

    12.3    Failing agreement between them, the parties accept the advice of the Real Estate Agent as to the method of sale;

    12.4 The parties cooperate in every way with the Real Estate Agent and the Real Estate Solicitors in relation to the sale of the Properties, in a timely and helpful manner.

    12.5 The listing price of the Properties be as agreed between the husband and wife or failing agreement within a reasonable timeframe, as recommended by the Real Estate Agent;

    12.6 The terms and conditions of the sale shall be as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement within a reasonable timeframe, as recommended by the Real Estate Agent,

13. The parties cause the proceeds of sale of the Properties or either of them to be paid as follows:

    13.1 To pay the sale costs;

    13.2 To pay the usual rates adjustments;

    13.3 To pay the minimal amount required to discharge any mortgage secured on the title of the properties or either of them;

    13.4 To pay the balance into a controlled monies account in the joint names of the parties such account to be managed by the Real Estate Solicitors.

    Single Expert

14. That Mr T of Y Real Estate be appointed as a Single Expert to report on the value of the following properties (the Real Estate Expert):

    14.1    5 Q Street, Suburb S;

    14.2 Z Street, Suburb E.

15. That for the purposes of the preceding Order:

    15.1 The parties will provide a joint letter of instruction to the Real Estate Expert within 14 days of the date of these Orders. If the parties are unable to agree on a joint letter of instruction then the joint instructions may be separately provided to the Single Expert by each party via his or her legal representative;

    15.2 The parties will advise the Real Estate Expert that a report is required 42 days from the date of these Orders, or 28 days prior to a final hearing, whichever is earlier;

    15.3 Each of the parties will comply with any reasonable request of the Real Estate Expert to provide access, information, documentation and authorities to enable the Real Estate Expert to complete the report;

    15.4 The parties shall pay the costs of the Real Estate Expert equally.

    Procedural

16. That the time limits, procedural clauses and the terms and conditions imposed by these Orders may be varied by the parties by written agreement.

17. That liberty be reserved to either party to apply to the Court on short notice with respect to the Business Sale, the Wind Up, or the sale of the Properties.

18. That if either party refuses, fails or neglects to execute any document necessary to put these Orders into effect 14 days after being requested to do so, and any such refusal, failure or neglect is proved by Affidavits filed and served by or on behalf of the party alleging this, the Registrar of the Family Court at Canberra be and is hereby appointed pursuant to Section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 to execute such document in the name of such party.

19. That the wife pay the husband's costs of an incidental to this application

Orders Sought by Respondent Wife

1. That the Application in a Case filed by the Husband on 8 July 2020 be dismissed.

Valuation of the Suburb D Franchise

1. That within 14 days of Orders being made, the parties are to engage Chartered Accountant, Mr P of N Services as expert witness ("the expert") for the purpose of obtaining a valuation of the parties' interests in B Pty Ltd only ("the Suburb D Franchise") as at 30 June 2019 and 30 June 2020, thereby excluding the parties' interests in SCC (the Suburb CC Franchise).

   IT IS NOTED: The parties jointly engaged this same expert on 13 June 2019 to undertake a valuation of their business interests in the Suburb D and Suburb CC Franchises.

2. For the purpose of Order 1:

   (a) The expert is to value the Suburb D Franchise including the NSW and ACT customer list figures as at 30 June 2019 and 30 June 2020 and;

   (b) For the purpose of the 30 June 2019 valuation, the expert is to value the Suburb D Franchise using the same information provided to him by way of joint letter of instruction from the parties solicitors dated 13 June 2019 and any subsequent information provided jointly to him by the parties solicitors after 13 June 2019 as agreed and in addition the parties are to cause their solicitors to send a joint letter to the expert enclosing the NSW customer list figures report as at 30 June 2019;

   (c) For the purpose of the 30 June 2020 valuation, each party shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to comply with all reasonable requests made by the expert including to provide all necessary documents for the purpose of completion of the valuation.

Disclosure

1. The Husband provide to the Wife's solicitors within 7 days of these Orders being made all documents requested by the Wife in the letter from Hijazi Curran Cameron Lawyers to Farrar Gesini Dunn dated 28 July 2020.

2. The Husband provide the Wife's solicitors with full and frank financial disclosure in relation to the Suburb D and Suburb CC Franchises and for this purpose, the Husband shall provide the Wife’s solicitors with all financial disclosure documents as is requested by her within 7 days of such request having been made.

Real Property Valuations

1. That the parties do all acts and things necessary to obtain a property valuation of the following 5 Q Street, Suburb S and Z Street, Suburb E within 60 days of the date of commencement of the final hearing of this matter, and for that purpose the Wife agrees to the appointment of Mr T of Y Real Estate.

Motor Vehicles

1. That the parties do all acts and things necessary for the business to enter into a new lease agreement to enable the Wife to upgrade her motor vehicle (vehicle to be leased through the business), with the business to continue to pay for the Wife's motor vehicle outgoings including but not limited to the lease instalments.

Other

1. That the hearing of the substantive applications be expedited.

2. That the Husband pay the Wife's costs of and incidental to this Application.