GBT v BJT

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between the parties, GBT and BJT. The central disagreement concerned the valuation of the husband's interests in an accounting practice, a vineyard, and other wine industry ventures, as well as the appropriate method for the wife to receive her entitlement.

The court was required to determine the value of the husband's interests in the various business ventures, considering whether a discount should apply to his minority interest in the vineyard. Further issues included whether to account for capital gains tax and how to adjust the property division based on the parties' contributions and the factors outlined in section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Strickland J reasoned that the objective of the valuation exercise was to ascertain the value to the owner, rather than adhering to a specific valuation methodology. The court determined that the value of the husband's interest in the accounting practice was to be assessed based on the agreed value between partners upon retirement. A 15% discount was applied to the husband's minority interest in the vineyard. The court found that the husband's contributions significantly outweighed those of the wife, assessing them at 87.5% to the husband and 12.5% to the wife. An additional adjustment of 5% was made in favour of the wife to account for the disparity in their income and earning capacities and other section 75(2) factors.

The final orders stipulated that the wife was to reimburse the husband for certain capital gains tax liabilities, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife the sum of $477,281.