Durant and Curran

[2019] FamCA 517

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DURANT & CURRAN [2019] FamCA 517

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim orders – Whether a valuation should be completed – Whether the valuation should be paid for from jointly held funds or by the applicant in the first instance – Where the valuation has sufficient relevance to the proceedings to justify it being prepared – Where the valuation is to be paid for from the jointly held funds in the first instance but on the clear understanding that it can be adjusted at the final hearing if the valuation was not in fact warranted.

APPLICANT: Ms Durant

RESPONDENT: Mr Curran

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2036 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 9 July 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Aldridge J

HEARING DATE: 9 July 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Batey

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Vizzone Ruggero Twigg Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr S Schonell

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: McLachlan Thorpe Partners

Orders

1. That the orders are made by consent in accordance with the Minute of Order signed by the parties and dated today, 9 July 2019, and placed with the Court papers as set out hereunder:

   BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED:

   1.That the parties do all things and answer all queries requested by the single expert Ms R to complete the valuation of C Pty Ltd consolidated group for F.Y.E. 30 June 2015.

   2.That the cost of the valuation of the C Pty Ltd consolidated group provided in Order 1 be paid from Westpac Account …29 in the name of C Pty Ltd in the first instance with the liability for the completion of the valuation to be determined by the trial judge at the final hearing.

   3.That by consent:

   3.1The cost of Ms R single expert valuation of C Pty Ltd consolidated group for the F.Y.E. 30 June 2018 be paid from Westpac Account No. …29 in the name of C Pty Ltd.

   3.2That the husband provide to the wife answers to specific Questions served on 24/5/19 by 16 July 2019 verified by affidavit.

   3.3That the wife provide disclosure to the husband’s solicitors’ request dated 5 July 2019 by 16 July 2019.

   4.That each parties’ costs of today be reserved to the final hearing.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Durant & Curran has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2036 of 2015

Ms Durant

Applicant

And

Mr Curran

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are property proceedings in which the applicant seeks an order for the preparation of a valuation of the respondent’s businesses in 2015. I am satisfied that the 2015 valuation has sufficient relevance to the proceedings to justify it being prepared.

2. The issue is whether or not it should be paid for from the parties’ jointly held funds or by the applicant in the first instance.

3. I cannot go into the history of the matter and decide, in effect, who is right or wrong in relation to whether or not the 2015 valuation should have been prepared earlier. It is said to be relevant on the part of the wife. It is said to not be relevant on the part of the husband. That issue will, of course, only be determined at a final hearing.

4. When it is determined, any diminution in the value of the company by disposal of assets since 2015 is a matter that ought to be taken into account in the final property settlement.

5. It is appropriate, in my opinion, for the valuation to be paid for in the first instance from the jointly held funds, but on the clear understanding that it is something that can be appropriately adjusted at the final hearing, should it be established that the valuation was not in fact warranted.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge delivered on 9 July 2019.

Associate:

Date: 5 August 2019