SCHOFIELD & MCCANN

This matter concerned property orders and disclosure obligations between the applicant and respondent, heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Adelaide. The primary dispute revolved around the sale of a residential property in the Northern Territory, referred to as the "Darwin property," which was held by a trust of which the respondent was a director and shareholder. The applicant sought to facilitate the sale of this property, while also seeking interim costs and spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine the terms under which the Darwin property would be listed for sale, including the respondent's liberty to determine the sale terms and the applicant's obligations to facilitate access for necessary work and inspections. Further issues included the applicant's entitlement to sole use and occupation of the property pending sale, and the respondent's responsibilities regarding property outgoings and keeping the applicant informed of the sale progress. The court also addressed disclosure obligations, including the provision of taxation returns, bank statements, and a forensic accounting report, as well as the process for challenging that report and the subsequent engagement in mediation.

Judge Willis made specific property orders, granting the respondent liberty to list the Darwin property for sale on terms determined by him, and requiring the applicant to facilitate access for necessary work and inspections. The applicant was permitted sole use and occupation pending sale, provided she maintained the property. Upon settlement, the applicant was to vacate. The respondent was ordered to meet all payments related to the property, including rates and utilities, and to keep the applicant informed of the sale's progress. Disclosure orders were made, requiring the respondent to provide taxation and bank statements, and a forensic accounting report. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the reasonable costs of a forensic accountant engaged by the applicant to review the report, and to facilitate dialogue between the experts. The parties were directed to engage in mediation of their financial dispute, with the respondent to bear the initial costs. The application for spousal maintenance was dismissed.

Finally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $15,000 by way of interim costs, intended to cover mediation expenses. The proceedings were to be heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Adelaide, with a mention date set for 3 March 2016. Provisions were also made for the filing and service of written submissions and draft orders concerning any applications for costs.