Finazzi and Finazzi (No 2)

In *Finazzi and Finazzi (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia was asked to determine an issue concerning the payment of valuation fees in a property settlement dispute between Ms Finazzi (the applicant wife) and Mr Finazzi (the respondent husband). The parties were preparing for a seven-day trial commencing in approximately four and a half weeks, with estimated total valuation costs around $100,000. The specific dispute before the court was whether the parties should equally share these valuation fees, as per the *Family Law Rules 2004*, or if the husband should pay the wife's share in the first instance, to be credited against her ultimate property entitlement.

The court was required to consider the wife's application for an order that the husband pay her share of the valuation fees, effectively seeking an advance on her expected property settlement. This application was framed by the parties as akin to a 'Hogan order', which typically involves a respondent paying the applicant's costs or a portion of their entitlement in advance. The central legal issue was whether there was a sufficient evidentiary foundation to displace the *prima facie* rule that parties equally bear the costs of single expert valuations, considering the relative financial positions and liquidity of the parties, and the justice and equity of any interim order.

Justice Murphy noted that while the *Family Law Rules* provide for equal payment of valuation fees, the wife sought an order for the husband to pay her share upfront. The court considered the parties' respective financial circumstances as detailed in their affidavits. The wife deposed to receiving substantial income and having some borrowing capacity, though her assets were cross-collateralised. The husband, conversely, detailed significant financial difficulties within his business interests, including substantial debts to the bank and an inability to access further funds. Despite the husband's claimed financial constraints, the court found that he had greater control over significantly greater assets than the wife and a superior capacity to regulate payments. The court referenced established principles from cases such as *Zschokke and Zschokke*, *Strahan and Strahan*, and *Gabel and Yardley*, emphasising the importance of considering relative financial strength, liquidity, and the overall justice and equity of any order, particularly noting that any interim order would be reversible.

Ultimately, the court determined that it was just and equitable for the husband to pay one half of the valuation fees in the manner contended for by the wife. The court reasoned that the husband's greater control over substantial assets and his capacity to regulate payments justified this order, especially given that the wife would ultimately receive significantly more than $50,000 in the property settlement, allowing for appropriate adjustment.