DUNCAN & KELSO

In the Family Court of Australia, the applicant, Ms Duncan, and the respondent, Mr Kelso, sought various interim orders concerning property settlement and related matters. The parties had been in a de facto relationship from either 2007 or 2009 until November 2011. The dispute involved significant financial contributions and assets, including properties in New Zealand developed through a joint venture, the respondent's family company and its subsidiaries, and other personal assets.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether to appoint a single expert valuer for real estate and corporate entities, and the parameters of such an appointment, particularly concerning the respondent's family company and its subsidiaries. The court also had to consider an application for an interim property settlement of $500,000, an application for periodic spousal maintenance, an application for the sale of a New Zealand property, and an application for the appointment of an agent for the partnership.

Regarding the appointment of valuers, the court ordered the appointment of a single expert valuer for real estate and joint ventures, with the respondent to bear the initial costs, subject to adjustment at the final hearing. However, the valuation of the respondent's family company and its subsidiaries was not ordered at this interim stage, due to the high cost and the respondent's evidence that his shares carried no voting rights and no entitlement to asset distribution on winding up, a claim disputed by the applicant but unsubstantiated by evidence. The application for an interim property settlement of $500,000 was dismissed, as the applicant could not demonstrate with sufficient certainty that she would receive monies at the final hearing that would allow for the repayment of such a sum. The court also declined to hear a fresh application for periodic spousal maintenance at that time, noting the applicant had previously abandoned such a claim and the respondent was unprepared to meet it. An application for the interim sale of a New Zealand property was dismissed as the respondent wished to retain it and had other assets to satisfy any potential property order. Finally, the court appointed the respondent as the agent for the partnership, noting the applicant's withdrawal of significant funds from the partnership without consent, contrary to the partnership agreement.