Atkins and Hunt and Ors

In the matter of *Atkins and Hunt and Ors*, heard before Watts J, the dispute concerned the use of evidence, specifically Exhibit 34, which contained a valuation report. The applicants, the second to seventh respondents, sought to limit the use of this exhibit, arguing it would be unfairly prejudicial to them.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the use of Exhibit 34 should be limited, pursuant to section 136 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). The respondents contended that unlimited use of the report would be unfairly prejudicial because they had not had the opportunity to challenge the report or cross-examine the author, Mr R, and because each party was intending to call expert evidence regarding the value of N Pty Ltd as at 2015.

Watts J considered the arguments and found that the opinion expressed in Mr R's report was clear and not misleading or confusing. The judge rejected the submission that the unlimited use of the report would be unfairly prejudicial. The court noted that the respondents' arguments were underpinned by their lack of opportunity to challenge the report and cross-examine Mr R, but ultimately found these concerns did not warrant limiting the use of the evidence. The court also observed that the valuation methodology used in Exhibit 34, an "Asset Approach" for N Pty Ltd, differed from the "Income Based Approach" used in another valuation for H Pty Ltd, but found this difference unremarkable given the nature of the companies.

The application by the second to seventh respondents to limit the use of Exhibit 34 was dismissed. The court ordered that Exhibit 34 be provided to Ms AAA and Ms BBB to allow them to prepare statements commenting on it, with any such statements to be provided to the court's associate in electronic form.