FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BOLLEN & BOLLEN | [2020] FamCA 605 |
| FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where after a long marriage the parties agreed on an equal division of assets – where the husband wanted to retain the property he occupied and the wife wanted it sold and the proceeds divided – where the court orders that the husband have the opportunity to retain that property – where the orders provide for the husband to pay the wife a lump sum to effect an equal division of the assets – where there are orders for sale if the husband is unable to make the payment to the wife FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Value of Property – Expert Evidence – where the parties appointed a single expert to value their real property – where the wife did not agree with the evidence of the single expert – where the wife applied to the Court on the first day of the hearing to adduce her own expert evidence as to the value of the real properties – where the court gave the wife leave to adduce her own expert evidence – where the wife’s expert and the single expert conferred and agreed upon the value of the real properties– where the wife accepted the value agreed upon by the two experts with respect to the property she occupies but sought leave to cross-examine her own expert as to the value of the real property occupied by the husband – where the wife believes that the property is worth significantly more than the value attributed to it by her own expert witness – where the court is satisfied as to the value and does not believe a sale is required to achieve a just and equitable outcome FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY– addbacks – legal fees – where the parties both paid for their respective legal fees from a joint account – where in all of the circumstances the legal fees spent by both parties are added back in the pool – where the legal fees expended by the husband on behalf of their son are also added back and included in the sum of legal fees expended by the husband |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 75 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 140, 38 Family Law Rules rr 15.49, 15.42 |
| Bingham v Cumberland County Council (1954) 20 LGR 1 |
Continue reading BOLLEN & BOLLEN
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- BOLLEN & BOLLEN [2020] FamCA 605
- Case
- [2020] FamCA 605
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court concerned the valuation of the parties' real property and the treatment of legal fees. Specifically, the wife sought to adduce her own expert evidence regarding property valuations, despite the parties having initially appointed a single expert. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether legal fees, paid by both parties from a joint account and including fees incurred by the husband on behalf of their son, should be added back into the asset pool for division.
Macmillan J reasoned that while the wife initially disagreed with the single expert's valuation, her own expert and the single expert subsequently conferred and agreed on the value of the properties. Although the wife accepted the agreed value for the property she occupied, she sought to cross-examine her own expert regarding the valuation of the husband's property, believing it to be worth more. However, the court was satisfied with the valuations and did not consider a sale necessary to achieve a just and equitable outcome. Regarding legal fees, the court determined that in the circumstances, the legal fees expended by both parties, including those paid by the husband for their son, should be added back into the asset pool.
Orders
Orders of the court
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1.
The matter be listed for mention before Justice Macmillan at 10am on 3 August 2020.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
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.