Dent & Dent - [2025] FedCFamC2F 623

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Dent & Dent [2025] FedCFamC2F 623

File number(s): DGC 1092 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS

Date of judgment: 16 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim defended hearing – application to rely on an adversarial expert of the husband’s business – experts use same methodology – difference of opinion about which data to use – difference of opinion about the multiple – substantial difference in business value – significant prejudice to the husband.

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) 7.08, 7.10, 7.25, 7.26

Cases cited:
Artinos & Artinos (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 37

Bass & Bass [2008] FamCAFC 67

Giacobetti & Giacobetti (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1091

IABH & HRBH [2009] FamCA 1131

Keevers & Keevers [2021] FedCFamC1F 338

Moretto & Cosola [2022] FedCFamC1F 433

Neales & Neales [2022] FedCFamC1A 41

Salmon and Ors & Salmon [2020] FamCAFC 134

Tsoutsouvas & Tsoutsouvasand Ors [2012] FamCA 521

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 63

Date of hearing: 22 April 2025

Place: Dandenong

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Fuller

Solicitor for the Applicant: Village Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Thomas

Solicitor for the Respondent: Featherbys
ORDERS

DGC 1092 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR DENT

Applicant

AND:
MS DENT

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

16 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be granted pursuant to rules 7.08(2)(c) and 7.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) for the Applicant to rely on the report of Mr B as an adversarial expert, as evidence as to the value of D Pty Ltd.
2.Costs of and incidental to the Application in a Proceeding filed 17 January 2025 be hereby reserved.
3.The Application in a Proceeding filed 17 January 2025 and the Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 17 February 2025 be hereby dismissed.

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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE JENKINS:

The parties in this matter, Mr Dent (“the husband”) and Ms Dent (“the wife”) are involved in a property dispute which is listed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dent & Dent

Details

AGLC: Dent & Dent [2025] FedCFamC2F 623
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 623
Decision Date: 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Dent & Dent before Judge Jenkins in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia involved an application by Mr Dent to rely on an adversarial expert in a property dispute with Ms Dent. The primary issue was whether Mr Dent could use the report of his adversarial expert, Mr B, as evidence of the value of D Pty Ltd. Both experts used the same methodology, but they differed significantly in their assessment of the business's value due to differences in the data used and the multiple applied. The substantial difference in valuation posed significant prejudice to Mr Dent.

The court considered whether the application to rely on the adversarial expert's report was appropriate under the rules, particularly rules 7.08(2)(c) and 7.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The court acknowledged the differences in opinion between the experts and the potential prejudice to Mr Dent if the report was not allowed. After evaluating the circumstances, the court decided to grant leave for Mr Dent to rely on the report of Mr B as evidence of the business value. The court also dismissed the application and the response, reserving costs of and incidental to the application.

In conclusion, the court granted Mr Dent leave to use the adversarial expert's report as evidence and dismissed the related application and response. The form of the order was subject to review and potential variation under the court rules. The decision highlights the importance of the rules governing the use of adversarial experts in family law property disputes and the potential prejudice that can arise from significant differences in expert opinions.

Orders

Orders of the court

DGC 1092 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR DENT

Applicant

AND:

MS DENT

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

16 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave be granted pursuant to rules 7.08(2)(c) and 7.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) for the Applicant to rely on the report of Mr B as an adversarial expert, as evidence as to the value of D Pty Ltd.

2. Costs of and incidental to the Application in a Proceeding filed 17 January 2025 be hereby reserved.

3. The Application in a Proceeding filed 17 January 2025 and the Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 17 February 2025 be hereby dismissed.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	DGC 1092 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE JENKINS
Date of judgment:	16 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim defended hearing – application to rely on an adversarial expert of the husband’s business – experts use same methodology – difference of opinion about which data to use – difference of opinion about the multiple – substantial difference in business value – significant prejudice to the husband.
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) 7.08, 7.10, 7.25, 7.26
Cases cited:	Artinos & Artinos (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 37 Bass & Bass [2008] FamCAFC 67 Giacobetti & Giacobetti (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1091 IABH & HRBH [2009] FamCA 1131 Keevers & Keevers [2021] FedCFamC1F 338 Moretto & Cosola [2022] FedCFamC1F 433 Neales & Neales [2022] FedCFamC1A 41 Salmon and Ors & Salmon [2020] FamCAFC 134 Tsoutsouvas & Tsoutsouvasand Ors [2012] FamCA 521
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	63
Date of hearing:	22 April 2025
Place:	Dandenong
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Fuller
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Village Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Thomas
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Featherbys

DGC 1092 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR DENT Applicant
AND:	MS DENT Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE JENKINS
DATE OF ORDER:	16 MAY 2025