Suvari & Suvari (No 2)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 223

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Suvari & Suvari (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 223

File number: SYC 544 of 2019
Judgment of: CHRISTIE J
Date of judgment: 26 March 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - Case Management– Interim Property – Where wife seeks injunctions to operate on savings accounts of the husband – Where husband opposes this on the basis that he needs these savings to pay tax and other financial obligations – Injunction granted for a portion of the funds in Australian bank account – Held that husband is free to use the remainder of his savings to pay creditors on condition that he provide evidence of this to the wife.  
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases cited:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; 229 ALR 457

In the Marriage of Waugh (2000) FLC 93-052

Mullen & De Bry (2006) FLC 93-293

Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319

Shercliff v Engadine Acceptance Corporation Pty Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 729

Suvari &Suvari [2022] FedCFamC1F 377

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 45
Date of hearing: 26 March 2025
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Rebehy
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mistryfallahi Lawyers & Business Advisors
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Watkins
Solicitor for the Respondent: MCK Lawyers

ORDERS

SYC 544 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MS SUVARI

Applicant
AND:

MR SUVARI

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CHRISTIE J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Each party file and serve a Costs Notice in accordance with the Rules by 4pm on 27 March 2025, such notice to pay specific attention to the requirement to identify the source of funds used to meet legal fees.

2.The time provided for service of questions to the expert provided in the Rules be extended to 4pm 30 April 2025

3.Within 7 days:

a.The wife file and serve a Request for Answers to Specific Questions addressed to the husband;

b.The wife make written request of the husband for provision of specific documents by way of disclosure.

4.That within 7 days of receipt of the requests in order 3 the husband provide:

a.Answers to Request for Answers to Specific Questions;

b.Documents requested by the wife.

5.Within 14 days the wife nominate 3 suitable mediators and provide details of their availability and cost.

6.Within 7 days of the wife’s compliance with order 5 the husband select one of the three mediators.

7.The husband and wife have leave to issue more than 5 subpoenae.

8.The husband forthwith execute an authority to Mr Z, accountant, permitting the wife to request (in writing) documents concerning any of the assets the subject of the single expert report by Mr AA or in respect of the husband’s taxation affairs.

9.The husband is restrained from operating his ANZ bank account …31 except for the purpose of complying with these orders.

10.The husband transfer to a controlled monies account in the name of…

Continue reading Suvari & Suvari (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Suvari & Suvari (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 223
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Suvari & Suvari, the wife filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking case management directions and injunctions, while the husband opposed the application. The parties separated in December 2018 and have been unable to progress their property adjustment application due to delays in obtaining expert evidence. The wife sought an injunction to restrain the husband from dealing with his savings, arguing that he was at risk of dissipating assets. The husband argued that he needed the funds to pay tax and company expenses.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the wife had identified a risk to the assets necessitating protective action and how to best address financial disclosure. The Court considered the precarious financial position of the parties' entities, the wife's concerns about asset dissipation, and the husband's need to use his savings for tax and company expenses. The Court granted an injunction restraining the husband from operating his ANZ bank account, except for the purpose of complying with the orders. The husband was required to transfer $250,000 to a controlled monies account and notify the wife if he used personal funds for corporate debt.

The Court's reasoning was that while the husband was entitled to use his savings for legitimate expenses, the wife's concerns about asset dissipation justified some protective measures. The Court imposed conditions to ensure transparency and accountability, such as requiring the husband to provide evidence of using funds for creditors and notify the wife of any payments to corporate debt. The Court also set out detailed case management directions to progress the property adjustment application.

The Court dismissed the Application in a Proceeding filed on 19 February 2025, but made orders for costs notices, extended time for service of questions to the expert, and required the parties to nominate and select mediators. The husband was also required to execute an authority permitting the wife to request documents from his accountant. The Court's orders aimed to balance the parties' needs while ensuring that the wife's concerns about asset dissipation were addressed.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 544 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS SUVARI

Applicant

AND:

MR SUVARI

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CHRISTIE J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Each party file and serve a Costs Notice in accordance with the Rules by 4pm on 27 March 2025, such notice to pay specific attention to the requirement to identify the source of funds used to meet legal fees.

2. The time provided for service of questions to the expert provided in the Rules be extended to 4pm 30 April 2025

3. Within 7 days:

a. The wife file and serve a Request for Answers to Specific Questions addressed to the husband;

b. The wife make written request of the husband for provision of specific documents by way of disclosure.

4. That within 7 days of receipt of the requests in order 3 the husband provide:

a. Answers to Request for Answers to Specific Questions;

b. Documents requested by the wife.

5. Within 14 days the wife nominate 3 suitable mediators and provide details of their availability and cost.

6. Within 7 days of the wife’s compliance with order 5 the husband select one of the three mediators.

7. The husband and wife have leave to issue more than 5 subpoenae.

8. The husband forthwith execute an authority to Mr Z, accountant, permitting the wife to request (in writing) documents concerning any of the assets the subject of the single expert report by Mr AA or in respect of the husband’s taxation affairs.

9. The husband is restrained from operating his ANZ bank account …31 except for the purpose of complying with these orders.

10. The husband transfer to a controlled monies account in the name of the husband and wife the sum of $250,000 by close of business 27 March 2025.

11. The parties are restrained from dealing with the monies placed in the controlled monies account except with consent in writing of both parties or court order.

12. If the husband applies personal funds to corporate debt he will notify the wife within 7 days of the date, amount and invoice paid.

13. The Application in a Proceeding filed on 19 February 2025 is otherwise dismissed.

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.

Background

Background to the litigation

The wife filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking case management directions and injunctions. The husband’s Response seeks that the Application in a Proceeding be dismissed.BACKGROUND The parties separated in December 2018. On 31 January 2019 an application for property adjustment was filed by the wife in this Court. That property application has not progressed because of delay in obtaining expert evidence about the value of the assets of the parties or either of them. The parties are unable to progress the matter because they do not agree as to the value of various assets. The Joint Balance Sheet (exhibit 1) demonstrates the difficulties: There would appear to be some mathematical errors in the above table (but it reflects the document which was before the Court). On 29 February 2024 an order was made appointing Mr AA as single expert valuer to value:(1)Suvari Pty Ltd;(2)E Pty Ltd;(3)B Pty Ltd;(4)BB Pty Ltd; and(5)CC Pty Ltd. The order was expressed generally to also require valuation of any other entity in which the husband has an interest. The report became available to one party just prior to the interim hearing. The parties agree that they have not had time to consider it in any detail but it would appear that the single expert has concluded that the various corporate entities have minimal value. I have previously observed (Suvari &Suvari [2022] FedCFamC1F 377) when hearing this matter on an interim basis:[4] The issues for determination are:…Has the wife identified a risk to the assets such that Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (“the Court”) should act protectively to ensure justice and equity can be achieved on final distribution?How are issues of full and frank financial disclosure best addressed in this case? Those issues remain live. The wife became aware in early 2025 of the appointment of an administrator to:(1)DD Pty Ltd;(2)Suvari Pty Ltd and(3)BB Pty Ltd. The administrator is described as a restructuring practitioner. I was told from the bar table that the administration has lapsed as creditors voted against the proposal. This leaves those entities in a precarious financial position on any view. The wife says that it is necessary for the Court to grant an injunction restraining the husband from dealing with his savings. The husband resists the making of the injunction on the basis that he wants to be free to use the funds in his personal bank accounts to pay tax and company expenses. The husband confirmed, through his counsel, that he has not previously loaned any of the entities funds to pay company expenses. The parties were able to agree to a series of case management directions which I propose to make.Injunctions Section 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides:(1)In proceedings of the kind referred to in paragraph (e) of the definition of matrimonial cause in subsection 4(1), the court may make such order or grant such injunction as it considers proper with respect to the matter to which the proceedings relate, including:(a) an injunction for the personal protection of a party to the marriage;(b)an injunction restraining a party to the marriage from entering or remaining in the matrimonial home or the premises in which the other party to the marriage resides, or restraining a party to the marriage from entering or remaining in a specified area, being an area in which the matrimonial home is, or the premises in which the other party to the marriage resides are, situated;(c)an injunction restraining a party to the marriage from entering the place of work of the other party to the marriage;(d) an injunction for the protection of the marital relationship;(e) an injunction in relation to the property of a party to the marriage; or (f)an injunction relating to the use or occupancy of the matrimonial home.(2A)In a de facto financial cause (other than proceedings referred to in, or relating to, paragraph (e) or (f) of the definition of de facto financial cause in subsection 4(1)) the court may:(a)make such order or grant such injunction as it considers proper with respect to the use or occupancy of a specified residence of the parties to the de facto relationship or either of them; and (b)if it makes an order or grants an injunction under paragraph (a)—make such order or grant such injunction as it considers proper with respect to restraining a party to the de facto relationship from entering or remaining in:(i) that residence; or (ii) a specified area in which that residence is situated; and (c)make such order or grant such injunction as it considers proper with respect to the property of the parties to the de facto relationship or either of them.Sections 90SB and 90SK apply in relation to an order or injunction under this subsection in a corresponding way to the way in which those sections apply in relation to an order under section 90SM.Note 1: This subsection does not apply to proceedings referred to in paragraph (g) of the definition of de facto financial cause that relate to proceedings referred to in paragraph (e) or (f) of that definition.Note 2: The same requirements in sections 90SB (length of relationship etc.) and 90SK (geographical requirements) for section 90SM orders must be satisfied for orders and injunctions under this subsection.(3)A court exercising jurisdiction under this Act in proceedings other than proceedings to which subsection (1) applies may grant an injunction, by interlocutory order or otherwise (including an injunction in aid of the enforcement of a decree), in any case in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so and either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.(4)If a party to a marriage is a bankrupt, a court may, on the application of the other party to the marriage, by interlocutory order, grant an injunction under subsection (3) restraining the bankruptcy trustee from declaring and distributing dividends amongst the bankrupt’s creditors.(5)Subsection (4) does not limit subsection (3).(6)If a party to a marriage is a debtor subject to a personal insolvency agreement, a court may, on the application of the other party to the marriage, by interlocutory order, grant an injunction under subsection (3) restraining the trustee of the agreement from disposing of (whether by sale, gift or otherwise) property subject to the agreement.(7) Subsection (6) does not limit subsection (3).

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.