FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933

File number: CAC 1782 of 2018
Judgment of: GILL J
Date of judgment: 30 November 2022
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –
Where the wife has disclosed records to the husband and is
bound by disclosure obligations under the Federal Circuit
and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021
(Cth) – Where husband’s further orders seeking the wife’s
disclosure are dismissed – Where there is contention
between the parties as to the scope of work and payment of
a Single Expert to value the business property pool – Scope
of the work to be undertaken by a Single Expert is defined
– Shared contributions by parties towards obtaining a single
expert for valuations – In context of non-compliance by the
parties with procedural directions from the Court.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family
Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 1.04, 7.02, 7.04, 7.06

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 43
Date of hearing: 2 November 2022 and 10 November 2022
Place: Canberra
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Cox SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Canberra Legal Consulting
Solicitor for the First
Respondent:

Ms Simpson, Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson

Solicitor for the Second
Respondent:

Ms Goh, Farrar Gesini Dunn

Solicitor for the Third Ms Goh, Farrar Gesini Dunn

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933
Respondent:
Solicitor for the Fourth
Respondent:

Litigant in person (did not participate)

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 i

ORDERS

CAC 1782 of 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: LEI (EDDIE) XIA
Applicant
AND: FENG (AKI) QIU
First Respondent
LIQIANG WU
Second Respondent
BEN XIA (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY: GILL J
DATE OF ORDER: 30 NOVEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Order 3 of the orders of 21 September 2022 to be amended such that:
1.1 the husband is to provide any amendment to the amended entity diagram
provided by the wife within 6 business days from the date of this Order.
2. Order 4 of the orders of 22 July 2022 that provides for appointment of a valuer for the
properties to be amended such that:
2.1 the wife will provide any amendment to the letter of instruction provided by the
husband within 5 business days from the date of this Order;
2.2 the husband and wife will pay 50% respectively of any valuation; and
2.3 the husband and wife will comply with all reasonable requests of any valuer
engaged pursuant to this Order.

3. Within 7 days of settlement of the sale of The Coffee Club Gungahlin, the solicitors for
the wife are to provide to the solicitors of the husband a copy of the settlement figures
and description of any payments made consequent of that sale such as sale proceeds,
return of rental bond and fitout contribution (as applicable).
4. Order 5 of the orders of 22 July 2022 that provides for the appointment of a forensic
accountant to be amended such that the forensic accountant is to:

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 ii
4.1 value the entities and trust:
4.1.1 Akiross Pty Ltd;
4.1.2 WNA Group Pty Ltd;
4.1.3 DN & EX Pty Ltd;
4.1.4 AWAQ Pty Ltd; and
4.1.5 QF & XL Family Trust.
4.2 ascertain dissipation or wastage of any company or business funds or assets in
the entities and trust from the financial year ending 30 June 2016 to date in the
entities referred to in 4.1; and
4.3 assess the quantum of any loans or investments from or to any parties other than
the husband and wife to the entities described in 4.1, in the event that it is not
ascertained by the forensic accountant as part of the valuation process referred
to in 4.1.

5. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this court order:
5.1 the parties to agree to a forensic accountant;
5.2 within 3 business days, the husband’s solicitors to provide an outline of the
proposed forensic accountant and their costs;
5.3 within 3 business days, the wife’s solicitors to respond as to acceptance or
otherwise;
5.4 both parties are to consult and use their best endeavours to reach an agreement
in appointing a forensic accountant;
5.5 the husband will draft a letter of instruction to the agreed forensic accountant
within 7 days from the date of this court order to carry out the following scope
of work in Order 4. The wife and third parties are to consult in relation to the
letter of instruction, and the parties are to instruct the agreed forensic accountant
within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order;
5.6 the husband and wife will pay 50% of the cost of the scope of work set out in
4.1;
5.7 the husband and wife will pay 50% proportion of the cost of the scope of work
set out in 4.2;

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 iii
5.8 the husband, the wife and together the third party respondents Liqiang Wu and
Ben Xia, will each share one-third proportion of the cost of the scope of work
set out in 4.3; and
5.9 the husband and wife will comply with all requests of the forensic accountant
engaged pursuant to this Order.

6. The wife discloses to the husband, the primary accounting records in csv records,
including by producing the electronic entries recorded on bookkeeping software in
respect of the First Respondent Akiross Pty Ltd, DN & EX Pty, AWAQ Pty Ltd and
TCCGun Pty Ltd from 1 January 2016 or from the date of incorporation (whichever
that is later) to November 2022.
7. The forensic accountant appointed pursuant to Order 5 is authorised to request access
to any records or information reasonably required for the purpose of the report, and the
parties are to provide reasonable assistance to comply with any requests made for
information and documents.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited
circumstances, to publish 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 s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 1

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GILL J:
INTRODUCTION
1 This judgment concerns procedural issues relating to the scope of, and liability for payment for
the appointment of a single expert forensic accountant.
2 Whilst the parties have agreed on a number of the matters concerning the appointment of the
accountant, including that the expert’s work will be directed to valuing a number of entities
associated with the parties, being Akiross Pty Ltd (which operates The Coffee Club
Gungahlin), WNA Group Pty Ltd (which operates The Creamery & Co, Gungahlin), DN &
EX Pty Ltd (which operates The Coffee Club Majura Park), AWAQ Pty Ltd and QF & XL
Family Trust, a mechanism for the selection and appointment of the expert, and various
disclosure issues, they disagree upon whether:
(a) the expert should ascertain dissipation or wastage of any company or business funds or
assets in the entities and trust from the financial year ending 30 June 2016 to date;
(b) the expert should assess the quantum of any loans or investments from or to any parties
other than the husband and wife to the entities described in 4.1 in the event that it is not
ascertained by the forensic accountant as part of the valuation process referred to in 4.1;
and
(c) the apportionment of the costs in relation to the above two matters between the husband,
wife and the second and third party respondents (“TPRs”).

3 The parties also disagree as to whether the wife should produce bank and credit card statements
to the husband from herself and a number of the entities and should she assert that no such
records exists, provide a written explanation for such.
4 Whilst such matters are frequently resolved by agreement, in this case they were unable to be.
5 The resolution of the issues requires consideration of evidence to determine whether the
proposed steps are justified absent agreement. To this end, the parties were directed to file a
list of paragraphs read from their previously filed material in support of their positions. This
step was taken as the most efficient manner of dealing with the contentious issues without
requiring the parties to file yet more affidavit material.

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 2
6 The directions made to facilitate the resolution of these narrow issues were not complied with,
necessitating a further listing and further directions.

7 This non-compliance occurred within a further context of significant and ongoing non-
compliance with procedural orders. Of particular note is the failure of the parties to produce

an entity diagram setting out the interrelationship of the various entities, the subject of these
proceedings. Multiple directions have been given for this step to take place, but none has as
yet been produced to the Court. This has the practical consequence that consideration of the
contentions made by the parties in the extracts of affidavits relied upon occurs against a foggy
background as to how the various entities fit together.
8 An annotated Minute of Interim Orders sought is included as an annexure at the end of this
judgment. The document identifies the agreed aspects and, by underlining, the remaining
contentious matters.
MATERIAL RELIED UPON
Applicant husband
9 The applicant husband relied upon the following:
(1) Affidavit of Lei Xia affirmed 30 August 2018 at 53(b), 53(c), 54–58;
(2) Affidavit of Lei Xia affirmed 9 May 2019 at 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(f), 2(h), 3–5, 7(d), 10,
12, 15, 17, 20–22, 24, 27, 29–33, 37–40, 49–51;
(3) Affidavit of Lei Xia affirmed 17 February 2020 at 10–13, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27–31, 33–
35;
(4) Affidavit of Lei Xia affirmed 14 May 2020 at 27, 38, 30;
(5) Affidavit of Lei Xia affirmed 14 July 2020 at 19–22, 24, 25;
(6) Affidavit of Lei Xia affirmed 8 July 2022 at 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 24, 27, 32, 36, 37,

42 & Exhibit “LXE-2”, 46 & Exhibit “LXE-3”, 47, 52, 53, 56, 66, 71 & Exhibit “LXE-
6”, 72, 74, 75, 79, 81(e), 81(f), 81(g), 86, 88, 91, 95, 96, 100, 101, 107, 110, 111.

Respondent wife
10 The respondent wife relied upon the following:
(1) Affidavit of Feng Qiu filed 8 June 2022 at paragraphs 32-34, 65, 68, 72-74.

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 3
Second and third party respondents
11 The second and third party respondents relied upon the following:
(1) Minute of Orders sought by the TPRs filed on 14 May 2021;
(2) Affidavit of Liqiang Wu filed 1 May 2020 at 76 to 103, including exhibits LW12 to
LW17;
(3) Tender Bundle filed by the TPRs on 8 September 2022;
(4) Exhibit C1 of 2 November 2022; and
(5) Letter from Wife’s lawyers dated 9 November 2021.
The husband’s contentions
12 The husband contends that the wife has mixed her personal and business expenses (relating to
the entities), and otherwise dissipated business assets.
13 The affidavit material identified by the husband identifies removal of funds from business
accounts to pay legal fees, reveals the wife’s assertion of low income and purchase of a new
Mercedes motor vehicle, indicates the payment of personal expenses from business accounts,
the transfer of significant sums to third parties including to the wife’s mother in a manner
potentially inconsistent with the wife sourcing those amounts from non-business funds. Later
material identifies that the Mercedes was purchased by loan from the wife’s father partly repaid
with business related funds.
14 The husband secondly contends that while the wife has retained control over the businesses
that she has denied him access to bank accounts and financial records, and has transferred
business interests from jointly owned entities to entities solely owned by the wife.
15 The affidavit material indicated the transfer of some business interests. Its dated nature (the
most recent affidavit being from July 2022) was of little assistance in prosecuting a case for
current non-disclosure by the wife.
16 The husband thirdly contended that the wife has defaulted on payments that she was required
to make pursuant to orders, and has failed to provide disclosure.
17 Fourthly, the husband identified evidence to justify examination of loans/investments by the
husband’s parents.

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 4
18 This appears to flow from the husband’s contention that his parents loaned approximately $1.6
million AUD, each backed by a loan agreement.
19 It remained unclear on the extracts identified how these borrowings related to the business
entities of the parties, as opposed to other assets, and so unclear how they relate to the valuation
and assessment of the business interests by the forensic accountant.
The second and third party respondents’ contentions
20 The TPRs did not oppose the scope of the report as pursued by the husband, but sought limited
liability for the payment of the expert, due in large part to what they assert is a limited interest
in aspects of what the expert might investigate.
21 The evidence relied upon by the TPRs depicted close involvement of the TPRs in a number of
the business interests, both financially and non-financially, including the investment of
significant sums, allegations of fraud in relation to the business by the wife, allegations in
relation to payments being made from the businesses by the wife to third parties (in particular
to the wife’s father who is now also a party).
22 The claims pursued by the TPRs include not only the repayment of purported loans, and the
reversal of transactions in relation to WNA Group Pty Ltd (The Creamery & Co), but also an
accounting of profits in relation to one of the entities, DN & EX Pty Ltd (The Coffee Club
Majura Park), based upon the TPR’s investment in that entity.
The wife’s contentions
23 The wife, in resisting the extension of the report and in pursuing a limiting of her liability for
the costs of the expert, relies, in particular, upon the husband’s purported non-disclosure, and
obstruction in the management of the entities that the wife has responsibility for. Part of that
non-compliance relates to the non-payment of previous costs orders.
24 The wife contends that the husband’s assertions lack merit, and to the degree that the disputed
matters are the subject of investigation by the expert, the husband should bear the expense.
Discussion in respect of the Single Expert’s report
25 It is agreed that a forensic accountant be appointed for the valuation of the entities.

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 5
26 The principles relating to the appointment of a Single Expert are set out in the Federal Circuit
and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) at 7.04, in the
following terms:
7.04 Order for single expert witness
(1) The court may, on application or on its own initiative, order that expert
evidence be given by a single expert witness.
(2) When considering whether to make an order under subrule (1), the
court may take into account any matters relevant to making the order,
which may include the following (without limiting the matters which
may be relevant):
(a) the overarching purpose of these Rules (see rule 1.04) and the
purpose of this Part (see rule 7.02);

(b) whether expert evidence on a particular issue is necessary;
(c) the nature of the issue in dispute;

(d) whether the issue falls within a substantially established area
of knowledge;
(e) whether it is necessary for the court to have a range of opinion.
(3) The court may appoint a person as a single expert witness only if the
person consents to the appointment.
(4) A party does not need the court’s permission to tender a report or
adduce evidence from a single expert witness appointed under subrule
(1).

27 They in turn draw upon the Purpose of the Part at Rule 7.02:

7.02 Purpose of Part 7.1
The purpose of this Part is as follows:
(a) to ensure that parties obtain expert evidence only in relation
to a significant issue in dispute;
(b) to restrict expert evidence to that which is necessary to resolve
or determine a proceeding;
(c) to ensure that, if practicable and without compromising the
interests of justice, expert evidence is given on an issue by a
single expert witness;
(d) to avoid unnecessary costs arising from the appointment of
more than one expert witness;
(e) to enable a party to apply for permission to tender a report or
adduce evidence from an expert witness appointed by that
party, if that is necessary in the interests of justice.

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 6
28 The provisions need to be considered in the light of the overarching purpose of the Rules at
Rule 1.04:
1.04 Overarching purpose
(1) The overarching purpose of these Rules, as provided by section 67 of
the Federal Circuit and Family Court Act, is to facilitate the just
resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively
and efficiently as possible.
Note 1: These Rules must be interpreted and applied, and any power conferred or duty
imposed by them must be exercised or carried out, in the way that best promotes the overarching
purpose (see subsection 67(3) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court Act).
Note 2: See sections 190 and 191 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court Act in relation to
the overarching purpose of the Rules of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2). See
also the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021
which applies these Rules with modifications.
(2) Parties to family law proceedings must conduct the proceeding
(including negotiations for settlement of the dispute to which the
proceeding relates) in a way that is consistent with the overarching
purpose.
Note: See subsection 68(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court Act.
(3) A party’s lawyer must, in the conduct of a proceeding before the court
(including negotiations for settlement) on the party’s behalf:
(a) take account of the duty imposed on the party referred to in
subrule (2); and
(b) assist the party to comply with the duty.
Note: See subsection 68(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court Act.

29 Payment of a single expert is provided for at Rule 7.06:
7.06 Single expert witness’s fees and expenses
(1) Unless the parties agree otherwise or the court otherwise orders, the
parties (but not an independent children’s lawyer) are equally liable to
pay a single expert witness’s reasonable fees and expenses incurred in
preparing a report.
Note: Rule 12.32 sets out the circumstances in which an amount paid to an expert for
preparation of a report is a disbursement properly incurred in a proceeding.
(2) A single expert witness is not required to undertake any work in
relation to the expert witness’s appointment until the fees and
expenses are paid or secured.

30 Dealing firstly with the scope of the report, it may be observed that at this stage of the
proceedings there is some uncertainty as to what is necessary to resolve the proceedings. There
is a risk that a report may be cast wider than the significant issues in dispute, and also a risk
that an unduly restrictive scope may leave the evidence short on what is in fact required to
resolve the proceedings.

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 7
31 Given the stage of the proceedings at which the issue has arisen, the determination of the scope
should be recognised to be heavily reliant upon judicial impression, based on the factual
contentions raised by the parties.
32 What is firstly contentious is the extension to assess dissipation or wastage. There is sufficient
identified by the husband to raise this as a legitimate forensic issue that could require resolution
for the husband and wife for all of the entities, and for the TPRs in relation to at least their
claims in respect of WNA Pty Ltd and DN & EX Pty Ltd. It should be noted that wastage and
dissipation also arises on the wife’s claims against the husband in, at least, her assertions of his
obstruction. The enquiry by the single expert ought to extend to such matters.
33 What is secondly contentious is the identification of loans or investments where such may not
be picked up by the valuation exercise. It is difficult to imagine that the loans issue would not
be picked up, such being intrinsic to the assessment of value, but in any event the extent and
nature of the financial inputs by the various parties are matters likely to require resolution to
both answer their claims, and to inform the adjustment of property interests pursuant to s 79 of
the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in a manner that takes into account creditor rights of the third
parties.
34 Given what has been identified above, there is good reason to consider that, as a matter of
impression, the issues identified in the contentious aspects of the scope are likely to arise in the
trial of the matter and require resolution. That is sufficient to justify scope in accordance with
the terms proposed by the husband and accepted by the TPRs.
35 The next issue is that of the costs of the single expert.
36 The default position is that such be equally shared between the parties. Some modification of
this has already occurred, as joinder of the fourth parties and the pursuit by the TPRs of the
fourth respondents as contributors occurred so late in the process as to disallow the prosecution
of the issue against the fourth parties while providing procedural fairness to the fourth parties.
Further modification is seen in the husband and wife’s acceptance that Orders 4.1 and 4.2
should be borne by either or both of them. Insofar as there is dispute in relation to Order 4.2,
those costs should be borne equally by the husband and the wife, there apparently being no
issue of contribution by the TPRs regarding Order 4.2, and the issue being live between the
husband and wife, as seen earlier.

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 8
37 That leaves, from the TPRs, the issue being as to what proportion they should bear with respect
to Order 4.3. It may be considered that, as proposed by the solicitor for the TPRs, there is good
reason to depart from the usual course of equal shares where there are third parties involved in
the proceedings who do not have an interest in the significant issue in dispute to be resolved
by the single expert. Such is acknowledged in the husband and wife’s approach to Orders 4.1
and 4.2. It may be envisaged that in some proceedings such third parties may have no interest
in the issue to be resolved by a single expert, the most striking being where the third parties are
joined in relation to property and the single expert is appointed in relation to the parenting
aspects.
38 However, the issue should not generally be resolved by a fine parsing of the issues in the case,
particularly where there is so significant an overlapping of issues between the various parties.
As in this case the nature of inputs into each of the entities is important to the resolution of
each party’s case, the husband and wife, and together Liqiang Wu and Ben Xia (the TPRs),
should bear the costs of Order 4.3 of a third each.
39 This does not mean that the issue cannot be revisited should an application for costs be made
in the substantive proceedings, particularly where the circumstances of, and factual
determinations made in the trial reveal conduct in relation to the proceedings, in respect of the
scope of the expert’s report, that justifies an award for costs.
Disclosure issues
40 The remaining issue relates to the pursuit of specific disclosure orders against the wife in
respect of bank and credit card statements, in respect of herself, Akiross Pty Ltd, DN & EX Pty
Ltd, AWAQ Pty Ltd and TCCGunn Pty Ltd from 1 January 2016 to the present, along with a
written explanation should records be asserted to be unavailable.
41 The wife’s schedule of disclosure (Exhibit W1) reveals the scope of this proposed order to be
oppressive, requiring the re-production of records already produced. While it may be the case
that further disclosure may be required in respect of such records, post-dating previous
disclosure, the wife remains bound by the disclosure obligations imposed by the Rules. She
should not be subjected to the onerous requirements of the proposed orders.

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 9
CONCLUSION
42 Orders will be made as agreed, along with proposed Orders 4.2 and 4.3. Orders will be made
for the costs of the single expert to be shared between the husband, wife, equally in relation to
Orders 4.1 and 4.2, and together with the TPRs in thirds in relation to Order 4.3.
43 The proposed further disclosure orders will not be made.

I certify that the preceding forty-three
(43) numbered paragraphs are a true
copy of the Reasons for Judgment of
the Honourable Justice Gill.

Associate: RC

Dated: 30 November 2022

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 10

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

CAC 1782 of 2018

Respondents
Fourth Respondent: WEN DE QIU, WNA GROUP PTY LTD, WNA

HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 11

ANNEXURE

MINUTE OF INTERIM ORDERS BY CONSENT – 2 NOVEMBER 2022

1. Order 3 of the orders of 21 September 2022 to be amended such that:-
1.1 the Husband to provide any amendment to the amended entity diagram provided by
the Wife within 6 business days from the date of this Order;

2. Order 4 of the orders of 22 July 2022 that provides for appointment of valuer to be amended
such that:-
2.1 the Wife will provide any amendment to the letter of instruction provided by the
Husband within 5 business days from the date of this Order;
2.2 the Husband and Wife will pay 50% of any valuation; and
2.3 the Husband and Wife will comply with all reasonable requests of any valuer engaged
pursuant to this Order.

3. That within 7 days of settlement of the sale of Coffee Club Gungahlin, the solicitors for the
wife are to provide to the solicitors of the husband a copy of the settlement figures and
description of any payments made consequent of that sale such as sale proceeds, return of
rental bond and fitout contribution (as applicable).
4. Order 5 of the orders of 22 July 2022 that provides for appointment of forensic accountant to
be amended such that the forensic accountant is to
4.1 value and ascertain dissipation or wastage of any company or business funds or asserts
the entities and trust from the financial year ending 30 June 2016 to date:-
4.1.1 Akiross Pty Ltd;
4.1.2 WNA Group Pty Ltd;
4.1.3 DN & EX Pty Ltd;
4.1.4 AWAQ Pty Ltd; and
4.1.5 QF & XL Family Trust.
4.2 to ascertain dissipation or wastage of any company or business funds or assets in the
entities and trust from the financial year ending 30 June 2016 to date in the entities
referred to in 4.1.
4.3 to assess the quantum of any loans or investments from or to any parties other than the
Husband and Wife to the entities described in 4.1, in the event that it is not ascertained
by the forensic accountant as part of the valuation process referred to in 4.1.

5. That within 14 days from the date of this court order
5.1 the parties to agree to a forensic accountant; and
5.2 within 3 business days, the Husband’s solicitors to provide an outline of the proposed
forensic accountant and their costs;
5.3 within 3 business days, the Wife’s solicitors to respond as to acceptance or otherwise;

Xia & Qiu [2022] FedCFamC1F 933 12
5.4 both parties are to consult and use their best endeavours to reach an agreement in
appointing a forensic accountant;
5.5 the Husband will draft a letter of instruction to (???) within 7 days from the date of this
court order to carry out the following scope of work in Order 4.1. The Wife and third
parties are to consult in relation to the letter of instruction, and the parties are to instruct
the agreed forensic accountant within 14 days from the date of this order.
5.6 the Husband and Wife will pay 50% of the cost of the scope of work sets out in order
4.1; and
5.7 the Husband and Wife will pay ## proportion of the cost of the scope of work sets out
in 4.2;
5.8 the Husband, the Wife Wen De Qiu and the Husband’s parents will share one-fourth
proportion of the cost of the scope of work sets out in 4.3;
5.9 the husband Wife will comply with all requests of the forensic accountant engaged
pursuant to this Order

6. That the Wife discloses (to???) the primary accounting records in csv records, including by
producing the electronic entries recorded on bookkeeping software, and banks/credit card
statements in respect of the First Respondent Akiross Pty Ltd, DN & EX Pty, AWAQ Pty Ltd
and TCCGun Pty Ltd from 1 January 2016 or from the date of incorporation (whichever that
is later) to November 2022.
7. To the extent that the Wife says that no records exist for a particular entity in part of the
period in order 6, an explanation is to be provided as to the absence of records in writing
through her solicitors.
8. That the forensic accountant appointed pursuant to order 5 is authorised to request access to
any records or information reasonably required for the purpose of the report, and the parties
are to provide reasonable assistance to comply with any requests made for information and
documents.