Fort & Fort (No 3)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 213

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Fort & Fort (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 213

File number(s): ADC 2560 of 2023
Judgment of: KARI J
Date of judgment: 4 April 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks to rely on a valuation report prepared by a shadow expert – Where the wife asserts that the expert who prepared previous valuation reports was not the single expert pursuant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) – Where the husband asserts that the expert who prepared the previous valuation reports was the single expert – Where the Court finds the expert who prepared the previous valuation reports is the singe expert – Where the single expert is appointed to prepare the updated valuation report – Where the wife’s application to rely on the evidence of an another expert is declined
Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Pt 7.1, rr 7.02, 7.03, 7.04, 7.08, 7.10, 7.26
Cases cited:

Fort & Fort [2025] FedCFamC1F 126

Fort & Fort (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 175
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 54
Date of hearing: 20 March 2025
Place: Adelaide
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Robertson-Clark SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Norman Waterhouse Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Williams SC, assisted by Mr Dillon
Solicitor for the Respondent: Precision Legal

ORDERS

ADC 2560 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MS FORT

Applicant
AND:

MR FORT

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

KARI J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.In relation to the property situate at BB Street, City R, in the State of South Australia:

(a)Forthwith and pursuant to r 7.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”), the parties are to jointly instruct AA Valuers as the single expert to prepare an updated valuation;

(b)The costs of AA Valuers are to be paid in equal amounts by each the husband and the wife;

(c)Forthwith upon receipt of the updated valuation, the wife shall file and serve an affidavit annexing a copy of the same.

2.In relation to the business known as the CC Pty Ltd:

(a)Forthwith and pursuant to r 7.04 the Rules the parties are to jointly instruct Mr DD as the single expert to prepare an updated valuation;

(b)The costs of Mr DD are to be paid in equal amounts by each the husband and the wife;

(c)Forthwith upon receipt of the updated valuation, the wife shall file and serve an affidavit annexing a copy of the same.

3.The Application in a Proceeding filed by the wife on 29 January 2025, together with the Response filed by the husband on 28 February 2025 be dismissed, save as to the question of costs.

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

Note:…

Continue reading Fort & Fort (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fort & Fort (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 213
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of ADC 2560 of 2023, the applicant, Ms Fort, sought to rely on a valuation report prepared by a shadow expert, while the respondent, Mr Fort, asserted that the expert who prepared previous valuation reports was the single expert as per the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The central issue before the court was whether the expert who had prepared previous valuation reports could be considered the single expert under the Rules, and if the wife's application to rely on another expert's evidence should be permitted.

The court examined the Rules and found that the expert who had prepared the previous valuation reports was indeed the single expert. Consequently, the court appointed this expert to prepare updated valuation reports for both the City R property and the business known as CC Pty Ltd. The wife's application to rely on the evidence of another expert was dismissed. The court also issued trial directions to prepare the proceedings for a final hearing, aiming to reduce procedural disputes between the parties.

The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the Rules regarding the appointment of a single expert in family law financial proceedings. By appointing the expert who had previously prepared the valuation reports as the single expert, the court ensured consistency and avoided potential conflicts in the valuation process. The dismissal of the wife's application to rely on another expert's evidence further reinforced the court's adherence to procedural rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

ADC 2560 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS FORT

Applicant

AND:

MR FORT

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

KARI J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. In relation to the property situate at BB Street, City R, in the State of South Australia:

(a) Forthwith and pursuant to r 7.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”), the parties are to jointly instruct AA Valuers as the single expert to prepare an updated valuation;

(b) The costs of AA Valuers are to be paid in equal amounts by each the husband and the wife;

(c) Forthwith upon receipt of the updated valuation, the wife shall file and serve an affidavit annexing a copy of the same.

2. In relation to the business known as the CC Pty Ltd:

(a) Forthwith and pursuant to r 7.04 the Rules the parties are to jointly instruct Mr DD as the single expert to prepare an updated valuation;

(b) The costs of Mr DD are to be paid in equal amounts by each the husband and the wife;

(c) Forthwith upon receipt of the updated valuation, the wife shall file and serve an affidavit annexing a copy of the same.

3. The Application in a Proceeding filed by the wife on 29 January 2025, together with the Response filed by the husband on 28 February 2025 be dismissed, save as to the question of costs.

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

Alongside the suite of orders that are to be made pursuant to these reasons, the Court shall also separately make trial directions to prepare the proceeding for a final hearing. It is hoped that progressing the proceedings to a final hearing will quell the interlocutory skirmishes between the parties; particularly those of a procedural nature.BACKGROUND It is not intended to set out a detailed history of the litigation. These reasons however should be read in conjunction with the earlier reasons published in the recent tranche of interlocutory disputes. The relevant background pertaining to the financial proceedings is as follows:(a)The parties met in the United Kingdom and started dating in approximately October 2008.(b)The parties began cohabiting in the United Kingdom in 2010, married in 2012 in the United Kingdon, and separated under the same roof in Australia in May 2021, with their physical separation taking place in March 2022.(c)At the time of cohabitation in the United Kingdom:(i)The husband was employed as a finance professional at EE Company and earning approximately £250,000 per annum.(ii)The wife was employed as a finance professional with FF Company and earning approximately £65,000 per annum.(d)The husband asserts that at the commencement of cohabitation he owned four investment properties in Australia (all of which were tenanted, with the rental income servicing the mortgage borrowings), Shares with EE Company valued at approximately $300,000, savings of approximately $50,000 and superannuation entitlements of approximately $50,000. In addition, he asserts that he purchased a villa in Country RR for approximately £250,000, paying a sum of £150,000 in cash and the balance provided by a mortgage.(e)The wife asserts that at the commencement of cohabitation she had assets including a property located in Town GG in the UK (which had a mortgage), a Motor Vehicle 1, savings of approximately $38,000 and superannuation entitlements of approximately $28,500.(f)In January 2011:(i)The parties purchased a property together in Suburb JJ in the United Kingdom; and(ii)The wife sold the property that she owned in Town GG.(g)The Suburb JJ property was sold in 2013, with the parties using the proceeds of sale to purchase a property in Town GG. This property was sold in approximately 2015 when the parties relocated to Australia.(h)The parties relocated to Australia in 2015. At that time:(i)The parties began living in one of the investment properties owned by the husband prior to the relationship, located in Town HH.(ii)The husband and the wife worked in a business owned by the husband’s parents known as “KK Company” (“the Business”).(i)In March 2015 the parties purchased the Business at a purchase price of $100,000. The purchase price, together with the costs of fitting out the store, stock and working capital was funded by the husband cashing in shares he held with EE Company.(j)The parties significantly expanded the operations of the Business from two stores located in Town LL and Town MM, to five stores and an online presence. It is the husband’s case that the online arm of the Business is the main source of revenue, and that this arm of the Business has been his sole responsibility. In addition, the husband asserts that he handles “all aspects of the Business including overseeing the day-to-day operations […] and managing staff, sales and the online website.” He asserts that the wife “has attended to payroll and works”. The wife asserts that she was responsible for managing all aspects of the Business’ financial operations including payroll, managing accounts, bookkeeping, banking, preparing business forecasts and reporting as well as HR processes.(k)The husband sold his pre-relationship investment properties in approximately 2015, netting approximately $2,090,000 which the husband asserts was applied to the purchase of the former matrimonial home in City R (“the City R property”). The wife asserts that the parties purchased the City R property using net proceeds from the sale of their property in Town GG as well as a loan from the bank and from the wife’s parents.(l)In 2020 the husband sold the villa in Country RR and applied the net proceeds of sale of approximately £250,000 to fund significant renovations and improvements to the Stirling property.THE INTERLOCUTORY DISPUTE

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.