Villar & Villar
[2025] FedCFamC1F 228
•7 April 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Villar & Villar [2025] FedCFamC1F 228
File number: SYC 2931 of 2022 Judgment of: CAMPTON J Date of judgment: 7 April 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where the wife seeks joinder of the parties three adult children and various corporate and trust entities in which the husband has had an interest in – Where the husband, the other current 18 respondents, and the proposed additional 13 respondents do not oppose the joinder – Where r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) mandates the joinder of the additional respondents as necessary parties to the proceedings – Order for the joinder of the 20th to 32nd respondents. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 2.50, 3.01
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 17 Date of hearing: 7 April 2025 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Kearney SC with Mr Springthorpe Solicitor for the Applicant: Rubin Blight Hardy Family Lawyers & Mediators Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Richardson SC with Mr Hollo Solicitor for the First Respondent: Barkus Doolan Winning Counsel for the Second to 19th, 24th, 25th, and 28th – 31st Respondents: Mr Williams KC Solicitor for the Second to 19th, 24th, 25th, and 28th – 31st Respondents: Karras Partners Lawyers Solicitor for the 20th and 32nd Respondents: Mr Burreket, Broun Abrahams Burreket Counsel for the 22nd and 23rd Respondents: Mr Samson SC Solicitor for the 22nd and 23rd Respondents: ATW Family Law Solicitor for the 21st, 26th, and 27th Respondents: Ms Pigdon, Pigdon Norgate Family Lawyers ORDERS
SYC 2931 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS VILLAR
Applicant
AND: MR VILLAR
First Respondent
MR B VILLAR
Second Respondent
F PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CAMPTON J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 APRIL 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.On or before 9 April 2025 the wife has leave file her Further Amended Initiating Application in terms as commencing at page 130 of the exhibits to her affidavit filed on 14 March 2025.
2.The following parties are joined as parties to the proceedings:
(a)Mr C Villar as the 20th respondent;
(b)Mr E Villar as the 21st respondent;
(c)Mr D Villar as the 22nd respondent;
(d)G Pty Ltd as the 23rd respondent;
(e)H1 Pty Ltd as the 24th respondent;
(f)H2 Pty Ltd as the 25th respondent;
(g)J1 Pty Ltd as the 26th respondent;
(h)J2 Pty Ltd as the 27th respondent;
(i)K1 Pty Ltd as the 28th respondent;
(j)K2 Pty Ltd as the 29th respondent;
(k)K3 Pty Ltd as 30th respondent;
(l)L3 Pty Ltd as the 31st respondent; and
(m)M Pty Ltd as the 32nd respondent.
3.Each of the 20th – 32nd respondents file and serve a Notice of Address for Service on or before 11 April 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 the pseudonym Villar & Villar has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CAMPTON J:
Ms Villar (“the wife”) and Mr Villar (“the husband”) are engaged in proceedings as to the adjustment of their property commenced on 3 May 2022 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), transferred to this Court on 4 July 2022, and placed on the Major Complex Financial Proceedings list on 26 August 2022. Trial directions were made on 11 April 2024 listing the dispute pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) for hearing over five days commencing on 25 November 2024. On 19 August 2024 orders were made joining to the proceedings Mr B Villar, the husband’s brother, as the second respondent, and the third to 19th respondents, being corporate and trust entities in which the husband had a direct or indirect interest. Directions were made on 22 November 2024 listing the proceeding for trial over two weeks commencing on 10 November 2025.
These reasons determine the wife’s application to join additional parties as the 20th to 32nd respondents to the proceeding.
BACKGROUND
The husband was born in 1956 and is 69 years old. The wife was born in 1968 and is 56 years old. They commenced cohabitation in late 1998, married in late 1989, and separated on 5 July 2021. There are three children of the relationship, Mr C Villar born in 1989, currently 35 years old, Mr D Villar born in 1991, currently 33 years old, and Mr E Villar born in 1994, currently 31 years old. The wife seeks to join the children as parties to the proceeding as the proposed 20th, 22nd and 21st Respondents respectively.
A significant value of the property of the parties comprises interests held by the husband in “the N Entities”. The husband says he is a property developer, describing the N Entities as a “sophisticated corporate group” whose primary business is the development of residential, commercial, retail, hospitality, and urban infrastructure developments. The group includes numerous companies, a significant number of trusts and joint venture structures, in turn holding substantial real property interests. The husband and the wife have other property interests which sit outside the N Entities.
The wife seeks to adjust the property of she and the husband equally. On 5 July 2024 she filed an Amended Initiating Application seeking that the husband transfer to her units in specified unit trusts and shares in companies forming part of the N Entities, and in the alternative sought for the husband to redeem units held by him in unit trusts and the for the proceeds to be paid to her. Her relief at that time mandated, pursuant to r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”), the joinder of the second to 19th respondents.
The husband broadly contends that the property of he and the wife ought to be adjusted 70 per cent in his favour and 30 per cent in favour of the wife. By way of his Amended Response to an Initiating Application filed on 10 July 2024, he seeks to transfer to the wife his interests in property at Suburb BB and in real properties in Queensland. By way of the Response to an Initiating Application filed on 27 August 2024, the second to 19th respondents seek to facilitate the implementation of the orders sought by the husband, and for the husband to transfer them “such funds or assets as the Court thinks fit to provide restitution to each respondent adversely affected by the making of [any s 79] Orders”.
The wife contends that structural changes have been made to the N Entities including transferring valuable interests to entities which the adult children of she and the husband, but not the husband, now have an interest. The wife contends that each of these changes “materially reduce the value” of the husband’s interest in the N Entities. It is her case that these changes have necessitated proposed variations as to the final relief she seeks.
WHETHER THE WIFE BE GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A FURTHER AMENDED INITIATING APPLICATION AND TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTIES
The wife seeks leave to file a Further Amended Initiating Application as contained at page 130 of the exhibits to her affidavit filed on 14 March 2025.
Rule 2.50 of Rules mandates that the wife obtain leave to amend her response for substantive relief in circumstances where the matter has been listed for trial.
The wife says the changes that have been made to the legal interests of the husband in the N Entities gives context to her application for leave to amend her substantive relief.
The husband, the second to 19th respondents, and the proposed additional 20th to 32nd respondents each appeared today and did not oppose, nor did they consent to, the joinder of the proposed additional respondents.
It is the wife’s contention that each of the proposed respondents were necessary parties to the proceedings for the purposes of r 3.01 of the Rules. The rule mandates that a necessary party must be joined upon the prescribed satisfaction of two conjunctive thresholders, being:
(a)Firstly, that the party who is proposed to be joined has rights that will be directly affected in the proceedings; and
(b)Secondly, that their participation in the proceedings is necessary to determine all issues in dispute in the proceeding.
If the evidence grounds such satisfaction, the rule obliges a joinder.
The proposed additional respondents, other than the three sons of the husband and the wife, are companies in which the sons now hold an interest in the N Entities, or in which the husband's brother, the second respondent, holds interests.
By way of her proposed amended substantive relief, the wife seeks a declaration that the husband controls each of the three adult sons of the marriage, such that their roles as officers of entities within the N Entities, and the interests they hold in that group through different corporations, are the property of the husband amenable for adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Act. In the alternative, she seeks orders which directly affect the interests of the proposed additional respondents by way of her proposed amended substantive relief.
The proposed additional respondents are directly affected by the proposed declaration sought on amendment by way the wife, or by way of her proposed alternative relief sought. In circumstances where the relief proposed by the wife directly affects the rights of the proposed additional respondents and having regard to none of the proposed additional respondents opposing the order for joinder, I find that their joinder is necessary to determine all issues in dispute in the proceeding.
CONCLUSION
The wife will be granted leave to file her amended initiating application as contained at page 130 of the exhibits to her affidavit filed on 14 March 2025. An order for joinder of the proposed additional respondents as sought will be made.
I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton. Associate:
Dated: 8 April 2025
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
SYC 2931 of 2022 Respondents
Fourth Respondent:
O PTY LTD
Fifth Respondent:
N1 PTY LTD
Sixth Respondent:
N2 PTY LTD
Seventh Respondent:
P1 PTY LTD
Eighth Respondent:
P2 PTY LTD
Ninth Respondent:
Q PTY LTD
Tenth Respondent:
L1 PTY LTD
Eleventh Respondent:
L2 PTY LTD
Twelfth Respondent:
VILLAR PTY Ltd
Thirteenth Respondent:
S PTY LTD
Fourteenth Respondent:
T PTY LTD
Fifteenth Respondent:
U PTY LTD
Sixteenth Respondent:
V PTY LTD
Seventeenth Respondent:
X PTY LTD
Eighteenth Respondent:
Y PTY LTD
Nineteenth Respondent:
Z PTY LTD
Twentieth Respondent:
MR C VILLAR
Twenty-first Respondent:
MR E VILLAR
Twenty-second Respondent:
MR D VILLAR
Twenty-third Respondent:
G PTY LTD
Twenty-fourth Respondent:
H1 PTY LTD
Twenty-fifth Respondent:
H2 PTY LTD
Twenty-sixth Respondent:
J1 PTY LTD
Twenty-seventh Respondent:
J2 PTY LTD
Twenty-eighth Respondent:
K1 PTY LTD
Twenty-ninth Respondent:
K2 PTY LTD
Thirtieth Respondent:
K3 PTY LTD
Thirty-first Respondent:
L3 PTY LTD
Thirty-second Respondent
M PTY LTD
0
2