Chapman and Timms and Ors

In *Chapman & Timms and Ors* [2013] FamCA 761, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the first respondent seeking leave to adduce evidence regarding the valuation of a company, P Pty Ltd. The applicant sought to oppose this, arguing that P Pty Ltd had no inherent value beyond being a vehicle for personal services income. The proceedings were listed for a final hearing, and the court was tasked with determining whether to grant leave for adversarial evidence concerning the valuation of P Pty Ltd, and whether to grant an injunction restraining the applicant from dealing with the company.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the first respondent leave to adduce expert evidence as to the value of P Pty Ltd, either through a single expert or separate adversarial evidence, and whether to grant an injunction preventing the applicant from dealing with P Pty Ltd. The court also considered the purpose and application of Part 15.5 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth), which governs expert evidence, particularly concerning the necessity and cost-effectiveness of obtaining such evidence.

Justice Berman reasoned that while the *Family Law Rules* generally favour single expert witnesses to avoid unnecessary costs, there are circumstances where allowing parties to adduce their own evidence is in the interests of justice. Given the significant dispute and uncertainty regarding the actual value of P Pty Ltd, separate from the intellectual property of "C Trademark," the court determined it was not appropriate to impose the joint expense of a single expert on the parties. Instead, the court granted leave for the first respondent to tender a report on the valuation of P Pty Ltd, with a condition that it be filed and served by a specified date. The applicant was also granted leave to file and serve her own report on the valuation of P Pty Ltd by a subsequent date, allowing for adversarial evidence on this issue. The application for an injunction restraining the applicant from dealing with P Pty Ltd was dismissed, as the court was not persuaded of its necessity or advantage. Costs were reserved.