Atkins & Hunt and Ors

In Atkins & Hunt and Ors, the appeal was brought against the decision made by the trial judge, Aldridge J, in the Family Court of Australia. The primary dispute revolved around the division of assets between the parties following a divorce, specifically the valuation of a company's shares held by the husband. The wife argued that the trial judge erred in various aspects, including the consideration of the husband's substantial control over the company, the inclusion of certain loan accounts in the asset pool, and the assessment of legal fees.

The court was required to decide whether certain grounds of appeal could be entertained despite not being argued before the trial judge, in accordance with the principles set forth in Metwally. It also needed to determine if the trial judge's preference for a single expert witness was justified and whether there were errors in the assessment of legal fees and the application of certain statutory provisions. The court found that the wife's arguments did not meet the criteria for entertaining new grounds of appeal as they were neither established beyond controversy nor purely legal questions. Additionally, the court held that the trial judge's preference for one expert over another was supported by the evidence, and that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of legal fees and the application of Family Law Act provisions.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of Aldridge J were set aside. The wife's application for the settlement of property was remitted for re-hearing. Furthermore, the court mandated a specific timeline for any subsequent applications regarding the costs of the appeal and directed the form and length of written submissions to be filed. The orders were to be entered in the court’s records.