Verber & Verber (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC1F 351

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Verber & Verber (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 351

File number(s): BRC 5254 of 2024

Judgment of: JARRETT J

Date of judgment: 28 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.12(2), 15.13

Cases cited: Venter & Venter (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 94

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 16

Date of hearing: 27 May 2025

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Ellis

Solicitors for the Applicant: M and K Lawyers Group Pty Ltd

Solicitors for the Respondent: York Family Law Specialists

Counsel for the First Non-Party Respondent: Mr O’Brien KC

Solicitors for the First Non-Party Respondent: Mangioni Biggs & Co.

Counsel for the Second Non-Party Respondent: Mr O’Brien KC

Solicitors for the Second Non-Party Respondent: Mangioni Biggs & Co.

No appearance for the Third Non-Party Respondent
ORDERS

BRC 5254 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS VERBER

Applicant

AND:
MR VERBER

Respondent

AND:
MR B VERBER

First Non-Party Respondent

AND:
D GROUP HOLDINGS FAMILY PTY LTD ATF THE D GROUP HOLDINGS DISCRETIONARY TRUST

Second Non-Party Respondent

AND:
MR C VERBER

Third Non-Party Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to rule 13.12(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, orders 1 and 2 of the orders made on 8 May 2025 in this proceeding be stayed until appeal number NAA226 of 2025 is determined or discontinued.
2.The costs of and incidental to the Application in a Proceeding filed on 27 May 2025 be reserved to the hearing and determination of appeal number NAA226 of 2025.

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.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JARRETT J:

In the context of an application for property adjustment orders between the applicant, Ms Verber, and the respondent, Mr Verber, on 8 May 2025 I made an order pursuant to rule 15.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) permitting the applicant access to any responses and affidavits filed by the respondent in two other identified proceedings…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Verber & Verber (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Verber & Verber (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 351
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 351
Decision Date: 28 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Verber initiated proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, seeking a determination of property settlement between herself and her ex-husband, Mr Verber. The court was asked to make orders concerning the distribution of assets, including a property held by D Group Holdings Family Pty Ltd, a company associated with Mr B Verber, who was also a party to the case. The dispute centred on the valuation of the property and the extent to which it should be included in the distribution of assets. The court was also asked to consider whether certain communications between the parties' legal representatives were subject to legal professional privilege.

The legal issues before the court included whether the impugned orders, which determined the valuation and distribution of the property, were correct. The court was also asked to consider whether certain communications between the parties' legal representatives were protected by legal professional privilege. The court was further asked to determine whether the appeals were bona fide and whether a stay of the impugned orders was appropriate pending the determination of the appeals.

The court found that the applicant had not persuaded the court that the impugned orders were incorrect and that the applicant was entitled to presume that the orders were correct. However, the court found that the appeals were bona fide, particularly as they appeared to be an effort to enforce a legitimate claim to legal professional privilege. The court also found that a stay of the impugned orders was appropriate, particularly given that the appeals would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not continued. The parties agreed that the costs of the present application should be reserved to the court hearing the appeal.

The court ordered that orders 1 and 2 of the orders made on 8 May 2025 be stayed until appeal number NAA226 of 2025 is determined or discontinued. The court also ordered that the costs of and incidental to the Application in a Proceeding filed on 27 May 2025 be reserved to the hearing and determination of appeal number NAA226 of 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

BRC 5254 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS VERBER

Applicant

AND:

MR VERBER

Respondent

AND:

MR B VERBER

First Non-Party Respondent

AND:

D GROUP HOLDINGS FAMILY PTY LTD ATF THE D GROUP HOLDINGS DISCRETIONARY TRUST

Second Non-Party Respondent

AND:

MR C VERBER

Third Non-Party Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to rule 13.12(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, orders 1 and 2 of the orders made on 8 May 2025 in this proceeding be stayed until appeal number NAA226 of 2025 is determined or discontinued.

2. The costs of and incidental to the Application in a Proceeding filed on 27 May 2025 be reserved to the hearing and determination of appeal number NAA226 of 2025.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Finally, King’s counsel argued that the proposed grounds of the appeal are more than arguable. Whilst counsel for the applicant took issue with that and did an admirable job of pointing out the strength of the reasons for the making of the impugned order, the test is not so much whether the grounds are likely to succeed, but rather whether the appeal is bona fide. Ultimately, counsel has not persuaded me that the appeals are devoid of merit or are otherwise not bona fide. That is especially so given that the appeals might be seen as an effort to enforce a legitimate claim to legal professional privilege.CONCLUSIONS Although the applicant is entitled to presume the impugned order is correct and she is entitled to the benefit of that order, Mr B Verber and the company have discharged the onus upon them to persuade me that it is appropriate to grant a stay pending the hearing and determination of the appeals. I accept that it is inevitable that the appeals will be rendered nugatory if the stay is not continued and that this is a weighty factor where I consider that the appeals are otherwise bona fide. The parties agreed that in the event that I continued the stay, the costs of the present application should be reserved to the court hearing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	BRC 5254 of 2024
Judgment of:	JARRETT J
Date of judgment:	28 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.12(2), 15.13
Cases cited:	Venter & Venter (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 94
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	16
Date of hearing:	27 May 2025
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Ellis
Solicitors for the Applicant:	M and K Lawyers Group Pty Ltd
Solicitors for the Respondent:	York Family Law Specialists
Counsel for the First Non-Party Respondent:	Mr O’Brien KC
Solicitors for the First Non-Party Respondent:	Mangioni Biggs & Co.
Counsel for the Second Non-Party Respondent:	Mr O’Brien KC
Solicitors for the Second Non-Party Respondent:	Mangioni Biggs & Co.
No appearance for the Third Non-Party Respondent

BRC 5254 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS VERBER Applicant
AND:	MR VERBER Respondent
AND:	MR B VERBER First Non-Party Respondent
AND:	D GROUP HOLDINGS FAMILY PTY LTD ATF THE D GROUP HOLDINGS DISCRETIONARY TRUST Second Non-Party Respondent
AND:	MR C VERBER Third Non-Party Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JARRETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 MAY 2025