Tsiang & Wu

In the matter of *Tsiang & Wu*, Altobelli J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Applicant (Mr Tsiang) to list certain relief sought in his Second Further Amended Initiating Application for a discrete hearing, separately from the substantive proceedings. The substantive proceedings involved an application under s 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to review consent orders made on 22 March 2016, which divided assets valued at approximately $38.8 million. The property pool included significant commercial interests in China (referred to as the BB Companies) and substantial real estate holdings in Australia and China. The Applicant sought to bifurcate the proceedings to determine discrete issues relating to third-party interests in the BB Companies.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether, pursuant to r 10.13 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth), the relief sought by the Applicant should be listed for a discrete hearing separately from the substantive proceedings. Rule 10.13 permits a party to apply for a decision on any issue if that decision may dispose of all or part of the case, make a trial unnecessary, make a trial substantially shorter, or save substantial costs. The Court was required to determine if the Applicant had satisfied the criteria outlined in this rule.

Altobelli J dismissed the Applicant's application, finding that it did not meet the requirements of r 10.13. The Court referred to numerous authorities, including *Southwell v Bennett* and the principles articulated by Lord Wilberforce and Lord Roskill in *Allen v Gulf Oil*, which caution against the preliminary determination of issues, particularly in complex cases involving detailed and overlapping factual findings. His Honour noted that such a bifurcation often does not lead to a quicker or cheaper resolution and can result in delay, extra expense, and the risk of inconsistent findings. The Court concluded that the proposed discrete hearing would not achieve the aims set out in r 10.13 and that the matter should proceed to a final hearing. The Court ordered that the matter be listed for a Final Hearing on 16 May 2022, with a preliminary mention for case management on 17 August 2021.