Sowards & Sowards
[2023] FedCFamC1F 1039
•6 December 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Sowards & Sowards [2023] FedCFamC1F 1039
File number(s): BRC 12036 of 2020 Judgment of: BAUMANN J Date of judgment: 6 December 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the matter was listed for a three day trial – Where the husband had failed to file trial material and sought an adjournment of the trial – Where there is a significant uncrystallised taxation debt – Oral application by the wife for partial property settlement orders – Where the partial property adjustment order will not inhibit the Court making a final property adjustment order to achieve justice and equity for both parties – Partial property settlement orders made – Notice to be given to the Australian Taxation Office Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 80 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 39 Date of hearing: 4 December 2023 Place: Brisbane Counsel for the Applicant: Ms R Horsley Solicitor for the Applicant: Barry.Nilsson Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondent: Litigant in person ORDERS
BRC 12036 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS SOWARDS
Applicant
AND: MR SOWARDS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That by 4.00pm on 13 December 2023, the husband shall pay the wife the sum of $700,000, and if that sum is not paid as ordered, the wife have liberty to re-list the matter for further hearing at 9.30am on 14 December 2023.
2.That the wife retain absolutely to the exclusion of the husband her interest in:
(a)the property held in her name situated at B Street, Suburb D in the state of Queensland more particularly described as Lots 1 B Street and 2 B Street on RP … on Title Reference …;
(b)her member entitlements with Superannuation Fund 1;
(c)the share portfolio;
(d)the E Life Insurance policy in her name;
(e)her bank accounts; and
(f)the furniture, contents, jewellery and other personal chattels in her possession and control as at the date of these Orders.
3.That the husband retain absolutely to the exclusion of the wife his interest in:
(a)his member entitlements with Superannuation Fund 2;
(b)his bank accounts;
(c)the F Life Insurance policy in his name;
(d)Motor Vehicle 1;
(e)Motor Vehicle 2; and
(f)the furniture, contents and other personal chattels in his possession and control as at the date of these Orders (save for his interest in G Pty Ltd, H Pty Ltd and J Pty Ltd).
4.That in the event that the wife and the husband or either of them fails, refuses or neglects to execute any documents or to anything necessary to give effect to these Orders, then pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a Registrar of this Court is hereby appointed to execute any deed, document or instrument in the name of the party, and do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed, document or instrument. It is deemed that there is a failure or neglect to sign if the party to whom the documents are being submitted has not signed them within the time frame specified in these Orders, and the affidavit of the party not in default testifying to this breach is deemed sufficient evidence of the breach.
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
5.That pursuant to r 3.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the wife shall within seven (7) days notify the Australian Taxation Office (“ATO”) of these proceedings and of their right to seek to intervene in these proceedings.
6.That pursuant to s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the wife have leave to provide to the ATO a copy of:
(a)the Reasons for Judgment delivered 6 December 2023;
(b)these Orders; and
(c)her trial affidavit filed 14 November 2023.
7.That the husband personally and as a Director of G Pty Ltd be restrained and an injunction issue restraining him from selling, transferring or encumbering his interest in the property at K Street, Suburb L.
8.That by 8 February 2024, the husband file and serve an affidavit setting out any further actions taken to crystalise his taxation obligations.
9.That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 9.30am on 15 February 2024 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at Brisbane.
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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 the pseudonym Sowards & Sowards has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BAUMANN J:
After a relationship which began with cohabitation and marriage in 2000, the Applicant wife, Ms Sowards, and the Respondent husband, Mr Sowards, finally separated some 17 years later.
The couple were blessed with three children, now aged 21, 19 and 14 years of age.
I am satisfied that attempts were made to try and resolve the property dispute post separation, but negotiations stalled such that in July 2021, the wife commenced proceedings. It is not necessary to record all the events and challenges which have prolonged this litigation save to summarise the main issues as being:
(a)The uncertainties that arise from the failure of the husband, now for over 20 years to file any income tax returns – both personally and for small companies which he controls;
(b)The husband’s mental health challenges, which the husband says (as does his General Practitioner Dr M), have been exacerbated by the distress associated with at least the breakdown of the marital relationship; the adverse effect of the parties’ separation on the parties’ children; the prolonged procrastination that weighed heavily on the husband by not filing tax returns and looking properly after his financial affairs;
(c)Ongoing disputes between the parties as to discovery and the changing legal representation of the husband. The husband specifically complained that the wife had not made full and complete disclosure in respect of any interest she may receive (upon the death of her 81 year old mother), arising from the Estate of the wife’s late grandfather, Mr N; and
(d)A dispute that arose formally in June 2023, when the wife, by an amended Initiating Application, sought an order for a declaration pursuant to s 78 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), that the husband’s 85 year old mother, Ms O, held her legal interest in P Street, Suburb D on behalf of the parties. This amended Application caused the husband’s mother to be joined as a Second Respondent on 28 July 2023.
More details of the procedural history (at least from the wife’s perspective) can be found at paragraphs 157 to 198 of the wife’s trial affidavit 14 November 2023. Despite the matter being listed for trial for three days commencing 4 December 2023, by me on 7 September 2023, at which time I made trial directions, the husband did not comply with these directions. In particular, he did not file an updated Financial Statement or a trial affidavit of evidence in chief.
The wife and the husband’s mother negotiated (after they both complied with trial directions) on resolution of the dispute relating to the P Street property. I made a consent order which dismissed the wife’s claim for a declaration, with each party meeting their own costs.
ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION
After appearances were called at the commencement of the hearing, Ms Horsley of Counsel appearing for the wife, it was clear that the husband was unrepresented. This was not really a surprise as his solicitors on the record had filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 24 November 2023.
The husband made an application for an adjournment, which was opposed by the wife. Mr Sowards wished to rely upon an affidavit which he said explained why he needed an adjournment. He said the document, which he handed up, had been prepared over the weekend with the assistance of an unnamed solicitor who charged him $10,000 to prepare the document. I refused to receive the unsigned affidavit until it was properly sworn.
Ms Horsley for the wife, who had received a copy of the unsworn document, placed on the record that the document she had viewed contained numerous comments and statements that were clearly inadmissible, if the husband claimed legal professional privilege. I did my best to explain to the husband that he was entitled to claim privilege, and if on reflection he wished to do so where it applied, he should strike those parts of the affidavit out of the document before he swore the document.
When, after the matter was stood down for at least an hour, the husband produced a sworn affidavit, no parts were “struck out”. I felt suitably concerned about his failure to do so that I tried to ignore some statements and did so. Nearly the entirety of the affidavit, which was relied upon for the purpose of the husband’s adjournment application only, related to the husband revealing his attempts to give instructions to his lawyers. I did not read anything in the affidavit that would have constituted any offer to settle the substantive applications, or advice as to the merits of the substantive application.
For reasons given orally after hearing submissions, I dismissed the application by the husband for an adjournment of the trial – but in a sense granted it, by allowing the wife to pursue an oral application for a partial property order. I explained to the husband what I intended to consider, and in those circumstances, Ms Horsley properly withdrew her objections to the husband relying on previous affidavits for the purposes of the partial property application. I agreed that, as is usually the case, the application would be heard by way of submissions. I directed the wife to produce a draft minute and provide same to the husband. The minute marked, Exhibit 2, is Appendix One to these Reasons. When we finally resumed at approximately 2.15pm, I was satisfied that the husband knew what the wife was contemplating and gave him ample opportunity to reply.
PRINCIPLES
I explained to the husband, that whilst the Court has the power to make a partial property order (s 80 of the Act), it is usual for the powers to alter property interests to be exercised only once and after all the evidence has been tested.
However, if the Court decides it is necessary to do justice that the Court should exercise its power to make a partial property order, the exercise of discretion requires the Court to consider that any partial property order made, does not compromise unfairly the capacity of the Court to ultimately make a final property adjustment order which achieves justice and equity for both the husband and the wife. [break up into two sentences?]
As the analysis that follows demonstrates, in my assessment, the partial property order I pronounce today, and as appears at the commencement of these Reasons, is just and equitable and does not prevent the Court from making such further adjustments to the balance of the nett interests, as may became necessary when all the evidence is tested.
In this regard, the admitted failure of the husband to comply with his obligation to file taxation returns (and perhaps as well financial statements for the entities he controls) and the continued failure through two sets of solicitors at least since the firm of Q Lawyers came on the record for the husband on 28 July 2023, to secure some evidence or crystallisation of his tax position, means I hold limited confidence the husband will grapple with this difficult issue. By his inability to do so, the wife’s capacity to move on is stymied to a large degree. To prolong any determination of the oral application to make orders by way of partial property orders, was simply unfair to the wife. As to the future case management, I am satisfied that the Commissioner of Taxation is “a person whose rights may be directly affected by an issue” in these proceedings and, because of the husband’s failure to date, I regard the Commissioner’s participation as necessary. I will order the wife to notify the Commissioner of Taxation of the proceedings and indicate he should consider intervening in the proceedings (see rr 3.01 and 3.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)).
To begin the analysis required by authority, some assessment of what the pool of interests might be is required. In this regard, Exhibit 3 was the wife’s contention as to the “balance sheet”, shaped as it was by the evidence, including the recently filed single expert valuations of real estate interests.
The summary below adopts, for the current purposes, some assumed valuations and interests clarified by the wife’s case outline filed 28 November 2023, namely:
(a)the total “value” of the two shares in G Pty Ltd is asserted to be represented by the gross assets of:
K Street, Suburb L $1,250,000 Share portfolio (at 17 November 2023) $1,056,019 Bank accounts (at 5 April 2023) $1,388,073 $3,694,092
or approximately $1,847,046 a share
(b)the total “value” of the husband’s nine shares (out of 10 shares) in H Pty Ltd (his mother holding the remaining share) is asserted to be represented by the gross assets of:
1 share in G Pty Ltd $1,847,046 Share portfolio (at 17 November 2023) $70,414 Bank accounts (at 5 April 2023) $44 $1,917,504
or approximately $191,750 a share. Therefore, nine shares equals $1,725,745 approximately.
(c)The total “value” of the husband’s shareholding (two out of four shares) in J Pty Ltd (his mother holding the remaining shares) is asserted to be represented by the gross assets of:
R Street, Suburb S $180,000 Share portfolio (at 17 November 2023) $116,664 Bank accounts (at 5 April 2023) $218,055 $514,719
with the husband’s interest of 2/4 shares being approximately $257,359.
I accept that some of the bank accounts may have changed, however the failure of the husband to provide any further recent details means these approximate balances can be notionally adopted. The husband’s “adjournment” affidavit refers to drawing funds to pay lawyers. However, with some substantial income producing publicly listed shares and also bank accounts, it is possible the income has swelled bank accounts. I also accept the husband’s personal share portfolio (estimated at $1,381,747) is likely to accrue dividend income. The husband’s last Financial Statement sworn 8 April 2022 asserted “dividend income” of $2,308 per week.
I need to make some comments about two liabilities contained in the wife’s balance sheet, being:
(a)The wife’s loan from her mother said to be owing under a post -separation loan agreement dated 27 October 2020, for a number of expenses, now totalling $1,079,705. A breakdown of the loan usage is provided by the wife at paragraph 128 of her trial affidavit, which I summarise as follows:
Legal fees $110,565 Transport Department $2,868 Renovations $881,204 School fees and children’s expenses $65,229 Credit card assistance $12,800 Car insurance $2,470 Car service $1,200
Although it would be open to the wife to argue that her contributions post separation, including to renovations should be taken into account in some way, I regard expenses other than those used for renovations are more in the nature of living expenses funded in part by her generous mother. On normal principles, even though it may prove to be the case that the husband has used some of his available capital to fund his legal expenses (a source unavailable to the wife), funds borrowed to pay legal expense would not usually be regarded as a “joint debt” in the balance sheet. I accept that costs of these proceedings are likely to be an issue to yet be determined. On this basis, I incorporate in the balance sheet below, a liability of $881,204 owed by the wife to the mother at this stage.
(b)When asked to produce to the Court, or point to any document which might assist the Court in forming a tentative view of the husband’s primary tax liability, the husband conceded he could not do so. The best the wife could identify was at page 351 of her annexures where the husband’s former tax solicitor, Mr T, informed the Australian Taxation Office by letter dated 9 March 2023 that his “current estimation of primary tax payable is in the multiple hundred thousand dollars.”
Based on the available evidence, I suggested, in submissions, an allowance for primary tax of say $1 million should be made in the balance sheet. The wife adopted that figure, but also, in the draft minute, sought to restrain some of the husband’s assets from disposal pending clarification of the tax figure and where:
(a)it is likely to be argued by the wife that the husband should be solely responsible for any penalty tax or interest on any tax debt; and
(b)although it does not appear that the wife has any personal liability for tax, it is accepted that some of the primary tax is likely to have accrued during the relationship and, as such, that will be a relevant issue to take into account.
It is noted that in the husband’s amended Response filed 27 July 2023, he sought that the asset pool be divided as to 60% to the husband and 40% to the wife excluding tax liabilities, but that “pursuant to s 90AE”, upon the husband being advised of his tax liabilities, the wife be responsible for 40% of those liabilities.
I am satisfied, as best I can, that making allowance for primary tax of $1 million is an appropriate notional amount. The wife, under the orders I pronounce, will hold significant assets and, with no immunity from some tax liabilities offered or ordered, she needs to understand that an adjustment in due course may need to be made against assets she now will receive. Although I regard that as unlikely, no guarantees can be offered to her.
On the basis of this analysis, I regard a notional nett asset pool of interests (including superannuation) to be approximately $6,407,655 at this time, as follows:
DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP VALUE ASSETS B Street, Suburb D Wife $2,500,000 One of two ordinary shares in G Pty Ltd Husband $1,847,046 Nine of 10 ordinary shares in H Pty Ltd Husband $1,725,745 Two of four ordinary shares in J Pty Ltd Husband $257,359 Share portfolio (publicly listed shares) Husband $1,381,747 Share portfolio (publicly listed shares) Wife $29,521 Personal bank accounts Husband $9,007 Personal bank accounts Wife $1,456 F Life Insurance policy Husband $9,917 E Life Insurance policy Wife $41,472 Motor Vehicle 1 Husband $52,250 Motor Vehicle 2 Husband $13,500 Jewellery Wife $20,000 Household contents (B Street) Wife $15,000 Household contents Husband $10,000 $7,914,020 LIABILITIES Loan to Ms U Wife $881,204 Potential future taxation liabilities Husband $1,000,000 $1,881,204 NON-SUPERANNUATION TOTAL $6,032,816 SUPERANNUATION Accumulation interest held with Super Fund 1 Wife $341,839 Accumulation interest held with Super Fund 2 Husband $33,000 $374,839 TOTAL $6,407,655 FINANCIAL RESOURCES Beneficial interest in Estate of the late Mr N (wife estimates, if interest were received today, value of $846,236) Wife Not quantified Sole use and occupation of P Street, Suburb D (single expert attributes value of $2,750,000 to the property) Husband Not quantified
THE WIFE’S SUBMISSIONS
The wife’s proposed minute, in effect, sought a partial distribution of approximately 50% of the pool as contended for in the aide memoire, after allowance for $1,000,000 on account of tax liabilities.
What was revealed by the proposal was, for the first time, the wife sought a transfer to her of a property at K Street, Suburb L, purchased in late 1994 (namely before cohabitation/marriage) for $225,000 by the husband’s entity G Pty Ltd. The evidence did not highlight the fact that the said property has been vacant for 20 years. The valuation report of Mr V filed 1 December 2023, arising from an inspection on 23 November 2023, described the property in these unattractive terms, inter alia:
the house is uninhabitable, and the valuer could not enter the house for safety reasons. The property is effectively a vacant site that is encumbered with a character protected dwelling that cannot be saved due to the poor condition and is detrimental to the overall property.
The valuer opined its current market value to be $1,250,000. It is unencumbered by any mortgage.
In submissions, it became clear to me that the wife’s intent in seeking to secure title to this property as part of the partial property distribution, was to look at ways to maximise the potential of the site by borrowing (either on her own property or with assistance through family), which was understandable. I noted in my exchanges with Ms Horsley for the wife that the wife’s minute of order for the trial did not seek that the husband cause that property to be transferred to her.
THE HUSBAND’S SUBMISSIONS
Although the husband had the emotional support of his mother (who remained in the Court during the proceedings), and he at times failed to grasp the principles being applied, however he is an intelligent man who has demonstrated, in the past, some skills in the property development industry, and his submissions included the following:
(a)no concern that the wife should receive now the home at B Street, Suburb D which the wife purchased over six years before the marriage and which she chose to extensively renovate post separation with the financial assistance of her mother, Ms U;
(b)The wife should receive now the other smaller items in her possession and her superannuation;
(c)He wishes to retain the property at K Street, Suburb L which he has owned for 30 years;
(d)He was concerned, I suspect based on his prior legal advice, how the Court could make a distribution without clarity as to this tax position – in circumstances where he does not know whether an allowance of $1,000,000 is enough; and
(e)He conceded that he has control of substantial funds that can be accessed quickly if requested, being at least:
(i)his personal share portfolios of $1,381,747;
(ii)a share portfolio in G Pty Ltd of at least $1,056,019 which included 40,000 W Pty Ltd shares with a value of approximately $1,000,000; and
(iii)bank accounts in G Pty Ltd of approximately $1,300,000.
(f)His exchange with the Bench elicited a query from him as to what the Capital Gains Tax effect might be for him if he sold the W Pty Ltd shares or if a property moved from his corporate entity to the wife. I made it clear I could not give him any such “advice” but that he would probably benefit from getting some independent advice quickly.
CONCLUSION ON THE APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL PROPERTY ORDERS
The husband agreed that so far as the wife’s home at B Street, Suburb D and other smaller items in the draft balance sheet were concerned, he had no issue with partial property orders as proposed by the wife being made.
On the revised balance sheet, these interests amount to a nett amount of $2,068,084 or approximately 32% of the nett notional pool of $6,407,655.
I am persuaded at this stage that the husband’s desire to retain the K Street, Suburb L property should be given some weight, and in the exercise of my discretion, to provide some protection in relation to income tax as assessed. I propose to make an injunction restraining the husband from dealing with that property – in a sense creating a “fund” of approximately $1,250,000. Considering how the husband has to date allowed the property to lay basically idle for 20 years, I regard such restraint at this time as proportional and proper.
I am satisfied the husband has a number of options available to him to quickly access some shares or cash in bank accounts so as to pay a cash sum to the wife. I have already put him on notice that he will be ordered to pay a sum by Wednesday, 13 December 2023. That is more than sufficient time for the husband to get some financial advice if he chooses to do so.
Considering the yet untested evidence offered by the parties on the relevant s 79(4) factors (including s 75(2) issues), I have come to the conclusion that the husband should pay the wife a further sum of $700,000. This represents a partial property division to the wife of around $2,768,084 or approximately 43% of the notional nett pool of interests.
I regard such an initial distribution as just and equitable, and with the “quarantining” of the K Street, Suburb L property, and with the other interests remaining in the husband’s control, I am satisfied the order made is not likely to inhibit the Court putting into effect final property orders that will achieve justice and equity.
I note that in adopting a figure of 43% of the pool, this is not to be constituted as a determination that the wife’s claim of 55% or the husband’s claim that the wife only receive 40% is not arguable. There are still many issues to be considered on a final basis, not the least being how to crystalise or better estimate the husband’s primary tax liability.
As to the further case management, I will make orders which, as indicated, require the wife to give notice to the Australian Tax Office of these proceedings, together with leave to provide copies of some limited material to the Commissioner.
I anticipate it could be some time (considering Christmas holidays are fast approaching), before the Commissioner makes a decision whether to seek leave to intervene in this matter.
As to what the husband now chooses to do, is ultimately a matter for him, however he is encouraged to seek further legal and/or accounting advice. His former solicitors on the record identified Mr Y of the firm Z Company as a suitable expert to advise as to tax issues. It seems Mr Y was partially briefed. Whether that is an option the husband still wishes to pursue or not, is a matter for him. It is not clear what position the Commissioner for Taxation might now take in this matter, but I am reasonably confident that by the end of February 2024, the Commissioner is likely to have resolved how he wishes to participate in this litigation.
Of course, I would never discourage the parties seeking to negotiate a final set of agreed property orders. To some degree, with recent valuations of relevant properties; with the inclusion of any interest in P Street, Suburb D resolved, and with these partial property orders made – the areas of dispute have slightly narrowed.
For the reasons given, I make the orders which appear at the commencement of these Reasons.
I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann. Associate:
Dated: 6 December 2023
APPENDIX ONE
1.That within seven (7) days of receipt of the relevant transfer documentation from the wife, the husband shall, in his capacity as director of G Pty Ltd (the company), do all acts and things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to transfer the company’s interest in the property situated at K Street, Suburb L in the state of Queensland more particularly described as Lot … on RP … on Title Reference … (the Suburb L property) to the wife.
2.That the wife shall be responsible, at first instance, for the payments necessary to discharge:
a.Statutory Charge No … lodged by the AA Authority;
b.Statutory Charge No … lodged by the Commissioner of State Revenue.
3.That the amounts paid by the wife, pursuant to the preceding paragraph of these Orders, discharge to statutory charges identified above be included and taken into account as liabilities within the balance sheet at the time of any final hearing of the matter.
4.That the wife retain, absolutely, to the exclusion of the husband her interest in:
a.the property held in her name, situated at B Street, Suburb D in the state of Queensland more particularly described as Lots 1 B Street and 2 B Street on RP … on Title Reference … (the Suburb D property);
b.her member entitlements with Superannuation Fund 1;
c.the share portfolio;
d.the E Life Insurance policy in her name;
e.her bank accounts; and
f.the furniture, contents, jewellery and other personal chattels in her possession and control as at the date of these Orders.
5.That the husband retain, absolutely, to the exclusion of the wife his interest in:
a.his member entitlements with Superannuation Fund 2;
b.his bank accounts;
c.the F Life Insurance policy in his name;
d.Motor Vehicle 1;
e.Motor Vehicle 2; and
f.the furniture, contents and other personal chattels in his possession and control as at the date of these Orders.
6.That in the event that the Applicant and Respondent or either of them fails, refuses or neglects to execute any documents or to anything necessary to give effect to these Orders, then pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975, a Registrar of this Court shall be and is hereby appointed to execute any deed, document or instrument in the name of the party, and do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed, document or instrument. It is deemed that there is a failure or neglect to sign if the party to whom the documents are being submitted has not signed them within the time frame specified in these Orders and the Affidavit of the party not in default testifying to this breach is deemed sufficient evidence of the breach.
IT IS ORDERED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER
7.That the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO) be invited to intervene in these proceedings.
8.That any Reasons for Judgment issued in support of these Orders (along with a copy of the Court file) be referred by the Registry Manager to the ATO forthwith.
9.That the wife be restrained and an injunction issue restraining her from selling, transferring or encumbering her interest in the Suburb L property.
10.That the husband be restrained and an injunction issue restraining him from selling, transferring or otherwise dealing with the share portfolio held in his individual name.
11.That the wife and her legal representatives be excused from further attendances at Court events in these proceedings and from any requirement under the Rules to file further material, until such time as:
a.the primary tax payable by the husband and the entities under his control is quantified; and/or
b.the husband seeks interim orders which would impact the wife; and/or
c.the ATO seeks interim orders which would impact the wife; and/or
d.the matter is listed for directions / case management in preparation for final hearing.
0
0
1