Villar & Villar (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC1F 231

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Villar & Villar (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 231

File number: SYC 2931 of 2022

Judgment of: CAMPTON J

Date of judgment: 8 April 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Partial property settlement – Injunctive orders – Where the wife seeks partial property settlement and the husband concedes to a partial property settlement, however puts the quantum sought by the wife into issue – Where the sum as sought by the wife ought to avoid further interlocutory applications for litigation funding, the substantive matter now being listed for trial – Where the husband and the other respondents agree to certain injunctive orders sought by the wife and oppose others, putting into issue the notice period sought and some of the subjects of notice – Where the balance of convenience favours the orders as to the provision of notice as sought by the wife – Orders made providing for the husband to pay interim property settlement by way of instalments and for restraints by way of injunctions to give notice.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, s 79

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ch 7, r 12.06

Cases cited:
Bing and Bing (2007) FLC 93-318; [2007] FamCA 418

Marchant & Marchant (2012) FLC 93-520; [2012] FamCAFC 181

Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466; [2009] FamCAFC 166

Tsiang & Wu and Ors (2019) FLC 93-911; [2019] FamCAFC 128

Villar & Villar [2025] FedCFamC1F 228

Zschokke and Zschokke (1996) FLC 92-693; [1996] FamCA 79

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 51

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 19^th, 24^th, 25^th, and 28^th – 31^st Respondents: Mr Williams KC

Solicitor for the Second to 19^th, 24^th, 25^th, and 28^th – 31^st Respondents: Karras Partners Lawyers

Solicitor for the 20^th and 32^nd Respondents: Mr Burreket, Broun Abrahams Burreket

Counsel for the 22^nd and 23^rd Respondents: Mr Samson SC

Solicitor for the 22^nd and 23^rd Respondents: ATW Family Law

Solicitor for the 21^st, 26^th, and 27^th 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:

8 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The husband pay to the wife $2 million in instalments by way of partial property settlement as follows:
(a)$500,000 on…

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 Villar & Villar (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Villar & Villar (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 231
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 231
Decision Date: 8 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Villar & Villar (No 2) involved a dispute between Ms Villar (the wife) and Mr Villar (the husband) regarding the partial property settlement and injunctive orders. The wife sought a partial property settlement and injunctive relief, while the husband conceded to a partial property settlement but disputed the quantum. The respondents, including the husband’s brother and various companies and trusts, agreed to some of the injunctive orders but opposed others, specifically the notice period and certain subjects of notice. The court had to decide on the quantum of the partial property settlement and the appropriateness of the injunctive orders.

The court considered the balance of convenience and the need to avoid further interlocutory applications for litigation funding, given that the substantive matter was listed for trial. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the orders as sought by the wife regarding the provision of notice. The court made orders for the husband to pay an interim property settlement by instalments and for restraints by way of injunctions to provide notice.

In summary, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $2 million in instalments by way of partial property settlement. Additionally, the court issued injunctions restraining the husband, the wife, and the specified respondents from causing or permitting changes to the structure or ownership of certain companies or trusts without providing the wife with at least 21 days' prior written notice. The court also restrained them from making any dealing or transaction over $5 million that would affect the specified companies or trusts without providing the wife with at least 21 days' prior written notice. The form of the order is subject to review and possible variation.

Orders

Orders of the court

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:

8 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The husband pay to the wife $2 million in instalments by way of partial property settlement as follows:

(a) $500,000 on or before 15 April 2025;

(b) $500,000 on or before 13 June 2025;

(d) $500,000 on or before 6 October 2025.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. For the purpose of Orders 2 and 3, the “Injunction Companies or Trusts” means the following:

i. X Pty Ltd;

ii. X Investment Trust;

iii. F Pty Ltd;

iv. The BB Unit Trust and any company in which the trust holds shares directly or indirectly including without limitation BB1 Pty Ltd and BB2 Pty Ltd;

v. The CC Unit Trust and any company in which the trust holds shares directly or indirectly including without limitation CC1 Pty Ltd and CC2 Pty Ltd;

vi. The V Unit Trust and any company in which the trust holds shares directly or indirectly;

vii. The DD Unit Trust and any company in which the trust holds shares directly or indirectly including without limitation DD1 Pty Ltd, EE1 Pty Ltd, EE2 Pty Ltd, EE5 Pty Ltd, EE6 Pty Ltd, DD2 Pty Ltd, EE3 Pty Ltd and EE4 Pty Ltd;

viii. T Pty Ltd The Villar Family Trust;

ix. The EE Trust and any company in which the trust holds shares directly or indirectly;

x. N2 Pty Ltd; and

xi. The FF Unit Trust and any company in which the trust holds shares directly or indirectly.

PENDING FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT WITHOUT ADMISSION, ON THE WIFE’S UNDETRAKING AS TO DAMAGES:

2. Each of the husband, the second respondent (Mr B Villar), the third respondent (F Pty Ltd), the sixth respondent (N2 Pty Ltd), the 10th Respondent (L1 Pty Ltd), the 14th Respondent (T Pty Ltd), the 15th Respondent (U Pty Ltd), the 16th respondent (V Pty Ltd) and the 17th respondent (X Pty Ltd) be restrained by injunction from causing or permitting any change to the structure or ownership or control of any of the Injunction Companies or Trusts, including but not limited to causing or permitting any:

(a) Changes in officeholdings;

(b) Alteration to shareholding or membership (including the rights and entitlements attaching thereto and the beneficial or ultimate ownership of same);

(c) Changes to the trustees, appointors or any other person who holds any power to deal with any aspect of the structure, terms, interests, entitlements or management of any trust; or

(d) Changes to the beneficiaries or class of beneficiaries of any trust (including the beneficial or ultimate ownership of any interest in any trust); or

(e) Amendments to any constitutive document including without limitation any trust deed or company constitution or shareholders agreement unless requested to do so by a financier when entering into financing facilities in the ordinary course of business;

Without having first provided the wife with not less than 21 days prior written notice of any intention to do so and in the event of any such change occurring the husband shall forthwith notify the wife of the same in writing, save that this restraint does not apply to interests held directly by the second respondent or the 10th respondent in the BB Unit Trust, the CC Unit Trust, the V Unit Trust, the DD Unit Trust, the EE Trust or the FF Unit Trust.

3. Each of the husband, the second respondent (Mr B Villar), the third respondent (F Pty Ltd), the sixth respondent (N2 Pty Ltd), the 10th respondent (L1 Pty Ltd), the 14th respondent (T Pty Ltd), the 15th respondent (U Pty Ltd), the 16th respondent (V Pty Ltd), and the 17th respondent (X Pty Ltd) be restrained by injunction from doing any act or thing or signing any document or causing or permitting any dealing, proposed dealing and/or transaction over the amount of $5 million which would affect the Injunction Companies or Trusts without having first provided the wife with not less than 21 days prior written notice of any intention to do so, save however that this restraint does not apply to interests held directly by the second respondent or the 10th respondent in the BB Unit Trust, the CC Unit Trust, the V Unit Trust, the DD Unit Trust, the EE Trust or the FF Unit Trust.

4. Each of the husband, the wife, the second, third, sixth, 10th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th respondents have liberty to apply on seven days’ notice to chambers and to all parties’ to discharge or vary Orders 2 and 3 hereof, and simultaneously upon exercising such liberty, shall serve upon each other parties an application in a proceeding particularising the order sought and an affidavit adducing evidence in support thereof.

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

These reasons determine the competing interlocutory relief of:(a)Ms Villar (“the wife”) and Mr Villar (“the husband”) as to partial property settlement; and(b)The husband, the wife, Mr B Villar (“the husband’s brother”) as the second respondent, and the third, sixth, 10th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th Respondents, as to injunctive orders;as sought in the Application in a Proceeding of the wife filed on 14 March 2025, the Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 31 March 2025 the husband, and the Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed by the second, third, sixth, 10th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th respondents. The relief sought by each was refined in Exhibit 9. These reasons assume familiarity with the reasons delivered and orders made on 7 April 2025 (Villar & Villar [2025] FedCFamC1F 228).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. They have three children, Mr C Villar born in 1989, being 35 years old, Mr D Villar born in 1991, being 33 years old, and Mr E Villar born in 1994, being 31 years old. The children are the 20th, 22nd, and 21st respondents respectively. A significant value of the property of the husband and wife comprises interests held by the husband in “the N Entities”. It undertakes real property residential, commercial, retail, hospitality and urban infrastructure developments. This group includes numerous companies, trusts and joint venture structures that in turn holding substantial real property interests. The husband’s brother holds interests and formal positions in the N Entities. The husband has historically held directly or indirectly approximately 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of the N Entities, and his brother held directly or indirectly approximately 33 per cent, or one-third. The husband exhibited to his affidavit a series of coloured diagrams showing the N Entities structures. By way of overview, the X Investment Trust by way of its trustee, X Pty Ltd, is the primary investment vehicle by which the husband holds his 67 per cent interest in the N Entities. The L Investment Trust, by way of its trustee L1 Pty Ltd, is the primary investment vehicle by which the husband’s brother holds his 33 per cent interest in the N Entities. Each of those trusts in turn hold commensurate units in a series of unit trusts that hold shares in corporations owning valuable real property development sites. The husband and the wife have other property interests which sit outside the N Entities. On 3 May 2022 the wife commenced proceedings pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). On 4 July 2022 the proceedings were transferred to this Court and on 26 August 2022 the matter was placed in the Major Complex Financial Proceedings list. The wife applies to adjust the property of she and the husband equally. The husband seeks that property be adjusted 70 per cent in his favour and 30 per cent in favour of the wife.The litigation history

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.

File number:	SYC 2931 of 2022
Judgment of:	CAMPTON J
Date of judgment:	8 April 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Partial property settlement – Injunctive orders – Where the wife seeks partial property settlement and the husband concedes to a partial property settlement, however puts the quantum sought by the wife into issue – Where the sum as sought by the wife ought to avoid further interlocutory applications for litigation funding, the substantive matter now being listed for trial – Where the husband and the other respondents agree to certain injunctive orders sought by the wife and oppose others, putting into issue the notice period sought and some of the subjects of notice – Where the balance of convenience favours the orders as to the provision of notice as sought by the wife – Orders made providing for the husband to pay interim property settlement by way of instalments and for restraints by way of injunctions to give notice.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, s 79 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ch 7, r 12.06
Cases cited:	Bing and Bing (2007) FLC 93-318; [2007] FamCA 418 Marchant & Marchant (2012) FLC 93-520; [2012] FamCAFC 181 Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466; [2009] FamCAFC 166 Tsiang & Wu and Ors (2019) FLC 93-911; [2019] FamCAFC 128 Villar & Villar [2025] FedCFamC1F 228 Zschokke and Zschokke (1996) FLC 92-693; [1996] FamCA 79
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	51
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 19^th, 24^th, 25^th, and 28^th – 31^st Respondents:	Mr Williams KC
Solicitor for the Second to 19^th, 24^th, 25^th, and 28^th – 31^st Respondents:	Karras Partners Lawyers
Solicitor for the 20^th and 32^nd Respondents:	Mr Burreket, Broun Abrahams Burreket
Counsel for the 22^nd and 23^rd Respondents:	Mr Samson SC
Solicitor for the 22^nd and 23^rd Respondents:	ATW Family Law
Solicitor for the 21^st, 26^th, and 27^th Respondents:	Ms Pigdon, Pigdon Norgate Family Lawyers

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:	8 APRIL 2025