Yeh & Jyu

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Yeh (the wife) sought interlocutory orders, primarily pressing for the payment of $1.15 million by way of partial property settlement. Mr Jyu (the husband) responded with his own set of proposed orders, including an agreement for the wife to receive $150,000 through joint borrowing, and the sale of a specific property with proceeds to be paid to the wife. Despite the husband's initial agreement to a portion of the wife's claim, the matter remained contentious and required judicial determination.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the wife's application for an interim distribution of property, specifically the sum of $1.15 million, and to determine the terms of any such order. This involved considering the principles governing interim property orders under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of significant disagreements between the parties regarding the valuation of their combined assets, estimated by the husband to be around $21 million and by the wife to be around $32 million. The wife argued for the interim payment to cover anticipated legal expenses and to receive a portion of her ultimate entitlement, while the husband contended that such orders should not be based on mere desire or anticipation.

Justice Cronin applied the principles outlined in *Strahan and Strahan* [2009] FamCAFC 166, which established a two-step process for interim property orders. The first step requires the Court to consider whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the application, and the second requires the applicant to satisfy the necessary requirements for the exercise of power under s 79 of the Act. The Court found that while a final hearing was preferable, an interim distribution was justified where, as here, one party held significant control over assets and a fair distribution was not occurring, leading to potential injustice. The Court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of the wife's contributions and the factors under s 79(4) of the Act to make an order under s 79(2) to achieve a just and equitable outcome, noting that the source of funds was not a barrier to entitlement.

The Court ordered that the husband pay to the wife $1.15 million by way of interim distribution of property. The Court also noted that the husband had agreed to a consent order for the wife to receive $150,000, to be borrowed from the National Australia Bank, and directed that minutes of proposed orders be engrossed and delivered to the Court. The application in a case filed on 3 March 2014 and the response thereto filed on 14 March 2014 were otherwise dismissed. The Court certified for counsel and reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge.