Henschel & Sartre (No 3)
[2023] FedCFamC1F 1081
•15 December 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Henschel & Sartre (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1081
File number(s): SYC 6123 of 2020 Judgment of: BERMAN J Date of judgment: 15 December 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Value of property – Expert evidence – Where the husband seeks leave to adduce separate adversarial evidence – Where the wife opposes the application – Where the shadow expert’s report is not provided on the basis of a substantial body of contrary opinion – Where the valuation methods as between the single joint expert and shadow expert are different – Where the difference between the two alternate valuation methodologies is $4,900,000 – Leave provided.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Value of property – Expert evidence – Where the wife seeks orders for updated valuations from the single joint expert – Where a property was being under construction at the time of the valuation – Where the single expert did not inspect the property – Where the property was valued on an ‘as is’ basis – Where documents were produced by subpoena that supported an updated valuation – Where the Court considers it appropriate to revalue the property – orders.
Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.05, 7.08, 7.18, 7.26 Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Marcin & Marcin (2020) FLC 93-956
Salmon & Salmon [2020] FamCAFC 134
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 87 Date of hearing: 5 December 2023 Place: Heard in Sydney, delivered in Adelaide Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Kearney SC Solicitor for the Applicant: Karras Partners Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Gillies SC Solicitor for the Respondent: ATW Family Law ORDERS
SYC 6123 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS HENSCHEL
Applicant
AND: MR SARTRE
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
BERMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 DECEMBER 2023
UPON NOTING THAT orders were made on 5 December 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 7.31 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the husband and wife shall arrange for Mr LL, valuer, and Mr MM, valuer, to confer at least fourteen (14) days prior to the resumption of the trial on 24 February 2024 and each party must give to the expert witnesses a copy of the court approved brochure entitled “Experts, conferences-guidelines for expert witnesses and those instructing them in proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia”.
2.At the conference, the expert witnesses must:
(a)Identify the issues that are agreed and not agreed;
(b)If practicable, reach agreement on any outstanding issues;
(c)Identify the reasons for disagreement on any issues;
(d)Identify what action (if any) may be taken to resolve any outstanding issue; and
(e)Prepare a joint statement specifying the matters referred to in (a) to (d) and deliver a copy of the statement to each party.
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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Berman J
INTRODUCTION
Ms Henschel (“the wife”) and Mr Sartre (“the husband”) are not able to agree settlement of property. The proceedings were listed for final hearing to commence on 4 December 2023.
On 24 November 2023, the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking the following order:
1.That the husband be granted leave to adduce evidence from [Mr MM], valuer, in relation to the properties at [N Property, Town O].
For her part, the wife filed an Application in a Proceeding on 30 November 2023 seeking the following order:
2.That the husband and wife forthwith jointly instruct [Mr LL] to provide an updating valuation report as to the current fair market value of the properties known as:
2.1 [H Street, Suburb J].
2.2 [V Street, Suburb W].
Each of the Applications in a Proceeding were opposed by the other party.
The husband relied upon an affidavit of [Mr MM] filed 23 August 2023 which annexes instructions that he received from the husband’s solicitors to value N Property, Town O NSW comprising title reference Lot … with a total area of over 250 hectares (“N Property”) and Lots … and … comprising approximately 30 hectares and 20 hectares respectively (“AA Property”). The wife opposed leave being given to the husband to rely upon valuation evidence from Mr MM.
The wife did not seek the appointment of a separate adversarial witness but rather that the single expert, Mr LL, update his report in relation to the commercial property at H Street, Suburb J (“the Suburb J property”) and the former matrimonial home at V Street, Suburb W (“the Suburb W property”).
Whilst the parties are not agreed as to a Balance Sheet setting out their assets and liabilities, a document prepared by the wife’s solicitors indicates that of a net total asset pool including superannuation of about $20,783,273. The Town O, Suburb J and Suburb W properties would represent a significant proportion of the total net pool, even taking into account areas of disagreement.
As a result of the necessity to determine the interlocutory proceedings relating to the value of Town O, Suburb J and Suburb W, Senior Counsel for each of the parties conceded that the matter was not ready to be heard and with some considerable reluctance, the substantive proceedings were adjourned to 24 February 2024 for final hearing.
SHOULD LEAVE BE GIVEN TO ADDUCE SEPARATE ADVERSARIAL EVIDENCE?
The rules dealing with expert evidence have, at their core, purpose to ensure that the parties obtain expert evidence only in relation to a significant issue in dispute, to restrict expert evidence to that which is necessary to resolve or determine a case and to ensure that if practicable and without comprising the interest of justice, expert evidence is given on an issue by a single expert and to avoid unnecessary cost from the appointment of more than one witness.
Rule 1.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) sets out the relevant definitions. In particular, an expert is defined to be “an independent person who has relevant specialised knowledge, based on the person’s training, study or experience”.
Heydon J, in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, provided an analysis of the authorities in respect of expert evidence as follows:-
85.In short, if evidence tendered as expert opinion evidence is to be admissible, it must be agreed or demonstrated that there is a field of “specialised knowledge”; there must be an identified aspect of that field in which the witness demonstrates that by reason of specified training, study or experience, the witness has become an expert; the opinion proffered must be “wholly or substantially based on the witness’s expert knowledge”; so far as the opinion is based on facts “observed” by the expert, they must be identified and admissibly proved by the expert, and so far as the opinion is based on “assumed” or “accepted” facts, they must be identified and proved in some other way; it must be established that the facts on which the opinion is based form a proper foundation for it; and the opinion of an expert requires demonstration or examination of the scientific or other intellectual basis of the conclusions reached: that is, the expert’s evidence must explain how the field of “specialised knowledge” in which the witness is expert by reason of “training, study or experience”, and on which the opinion is “wholly or substantially based”, applies to the facts assumed or observed so as to produce the opinion propounded. …
Rule 7.18(3) of the Rules requires that the expert witness has a duty to be independent and r 7.18(2) provides that the duty of the proposed witness is a duty to the Court and goes beyond any duty to a party.
I am satisfied that to the extent there is any issue as to the appropriate level of qualification, experience or expertise of Mr LL and Mr MM, they are both qualified to give expert evidence.
The contentious area in respect of expert evidence arises from the inability of a party to tender a report or adduce evidence from another expert witness if a single expert witness has been appointed, whether jointly by the parties or by order of the Court.
Separate adversarial evidence can only be called with the Court’s permission subject to three exceptions to the tendering of further evidence from another expert witness on an issue already addressed by a single expert witness, namely:
·If there is a substantial body of opinion contrary to any opinion given by the single expert witness and that the contrary opinion is or may be necessary for determining the issue.
·If another expert witness knows of matters not known to the single expert witness that may be necessary for determining the issue.
·If there is another special reason for adducing evidence from another expert witness.
A difficulty arises in respect of how “the substantial body of contrary opinion” (r 7.08(2)(a) of the Rules) is established before the Court. It cannot be the evidence of the second expert (which is what the application is seeking leave to adduce) and so requires more than information and belief such as a pool of other experts or other foundation research intended to establish the bona fides of the contrary opinion.
Rule 7.26 of the Rules provides the opportunity for a party to seek that the single expert answer questions. Providing the exercise does not extend to what might be considered as interrogatory, it is reasonable that a single expert be required to answer questions that are targeted to an issue arising from an expert report.
The Rules provide for questions to be put to a single expert in a timely fashion.
It is not suggested that Mr MM provides his valuation report on the basis of a substantial body of opinion contrary to the opinion given by Mr LL.
The valuers present with the necessary expertise and skill set to undertake the valuation process and provide an opinion of value but also that each valuer has undertaken the exercise in a manner that is considered independent and impartial.
If leave is to be given, then it is either because there are matters not known to Mr LL or that there is another special reason for adducing the evidence.
The husband sought leave to adduce evidence from Mr MM, valuer, in relation to the Town O property. By Application in a Proceeding filed 30 November 2023, the wife sought an order that Mr LL provide an updating valuation report as to the current fair market value of the Suburb J and Suburb W properties.
The wife opposed the appointment of Mr MM as a separate adversarial witness and the husband opposed Mr LL updating his valuation reports for the Suburb J and Suburb W properties.
The substantive orders sought by each of the parties confirm that the wife seeks to retain the Town O property, noting Town O is comprised of two allotments being “N Property” owned by B6 Pty Ltd as trustee of Mr Sartre & Ms Henschel Family Trust and AA Property held by Superannuation Fund 1 (“SMSF”). For his part, the husband seeks to retain the Suburb W property currently in the joint names of the parties together with the Suburb J property, which is commercial premises owned by B2 Pty Ltd.
Following submissions, I made the following orders on 5 December 2023:
1.That the husband be granted leave to adduce evidence from [Mr MM], Valuer, in relation to the properties at [N Property, Town O].
2.That forthwith the husband and wife jointly instruct [Mr LL] to provide an updating valuation as to the current fair market value of the properties known as [H Street, Suburb J].
I declined to make an order for the updating of the valuation in respect of the Suburb W property.
The Applications in a Proceeding were heard on the second day of trial. Senior Counsel for each of the parties conceded that the applications should be determined in order for the trial to progress with reasons for judgment to follow at a later date.
This judgment now provides the reasons for the orders made on 5 December 2023.
THE TOWN O PROPERTY
The Town O property is comprised of adjoining allotments described as N Property and AA Property.
Broadly speaking, Mr LL describes the Town O property as:[1]
….a larger scale rural acreage holding of some [over 300] hectares […] in total, made up of a main lot of [approximately 250] hectares plus 2 secondary holdings of [approximately 50] hectares in total. The main residence comprises of substantial single level building […].
[1] Mr LL’s affidavit filed 24 August 2023, page 32.
The accommodation is of significant proportion comprising eight bedrooms, six bathrooms and multiple living areas.
The Town O property has a reasonable level of arable land with the development of facilities and set up.
The likely purpose to which the block could be utilised would be as a “lifestyle block”.
Mr LL brought to account that whilst the home was substantial in size, it had been constructed on an owner/builder basis and that the level of workmanship is poor and non-professional.
Mr LL considered that the anticipated cost to make the dwelling compliant with appropriate building certification standards would not be cost effective.
In addition, specific comment was made as to the spread of a variety of noxious weeds resulting in some areas, in particular to parts of N Property, rendering the affected areas unusable for livestock.
The issue assumed a level of importance for Mr LL reflected in the following summary:[2]
These issues should be dealt with along with other day to day farming practices, though if left unattended to for years can be a significant blight on value of a property such as the subject overall. In forming this opinion, we of course can claim no professional expertise in such specific issues, and would rely upon expert evidence to the contrary should it be forthcoming. At this stage and in determining our valuation, we have attempted to include such an issue in the scope of our wider considerations and analysis on land value, as part of the myriad factors, both positive and negative, influencing our overall rate per hectare analysis to determine an end value.
[2] Mr LL’s affidavit filed 24 August 2023, page 38.
The valuation approach adopted was the direct comparison analysis methodology applied by reference to relevant sales transactions. The report of 21 August 2023 is the second report prepared by Mr LL. He has utilised the same valuation approach across the two reports.
After considering five comparable sales, the valuation summary is as follows:
N Property $20,000 per hectare $5,300,000 Approximately 250 hectares Lot 1 AA Property $50,000 per hectare $1,500,000 Approximately 30 hectares Lot 2 AA Property $47,000 per hectare $950,000 Approximately 20 hectares TOTAL $7,750,000
Mr LL qualified his valuation calculations by noting that:[3]
…there is a limited volume of sales having occurred over recent years being of a similar land area, with a greater majority of sales in the locality more typically being set upon rural holdings of around 40 to 100 hectares.
[3] Mr LL’s affidavit filed 24 August 2023, page 50.
By way of a comparison or cross-check Mr LL considered that:[4]
Considering rural holdings on a per hectare basis is a further approach for comparison. It can be readily seen that the smaller scale holdings, say 40-120 hectares are generally within the range $40,000 - $150,000 per hectare, inclusive of all improvements, whilst a larger scale holdings approaching the subject in area say, 250 hectares, reflect values in the range of $10,000 - $20,000 per hectare, dependent upon location such as proximity to the [Town NN] and [Town OO] townships…
[4] Mr LL’s affidavit filed 24 August 2023, page 50.
Pursuant to r 7.26 of the Rules, the respondent’s solicitors forwarded 44 questions to Mr LL on 8 September 2023. They were directed to whether the single expert considered the highest and best use for the Town O property and if so, whether there was a consideration and potential for subdivision.
There was also a focus on a forensic consideration as to the extent to which the comparable sales were or were not relevant to assess a value of the Town O property and finally, the extent to which the reference by Mr LL to the advancing of noxious weeds on the property, but in particular to the area comprised by N Property, had been brought to account and whether any of the comparable sales were adversely impacted by noxious weeds.
Mr LL provided a comprehensive and timely response to the questions asked of him and in conclusion, he did not consider that any of the matters raised for his consideration would cause him to review or revise his current valuation of the Town O property.
The husband instructed Mr MM to undertake a valuation of the Town O property. Mr MM produced a report dated 16 November 2023 which provided his valuation of N Property and AA Property.
The value of N Property is comprised of $9,540,000 for land type with added value of buildings and improvements of $535,000 rounded to a total of $10,100,000. AA Property is comprised of total land type value of $2,528,500 together with building and improvements of $35,000 rounded up to $2,550,000.[5] Overall, Mr MM values the Town O property at $12,650,000.
[5] Mr MM’s valuation report dated 16 November 2023, page 40.
It is apparent from Mr MM’s report that he was made aware of the relevant divisions of the Rules and prepared his report on the basis that it was independent and impartial. Mr MM adequately described the Town O property in a manner similar to Mr LL but sought to emphasise the land type resulting in the property being apportioned into the following land use components:[6]
[6] Mr MM’s valuation report dated 16 November 2023, page 17.
Land Type Development Area (ha) Percentage developed land area N Property Open to light Grazing Approximately 200 61.38% Light tree cover Grazing with regrowth Approximately 20 6.46% Heavy tree cover Production Approximately 50 15.83% AA Property Open to light Grazing Approximately 50 16.32% Overall Total 309.58 100%
The executive summary of value by Mr MM is that the property should have a market value of $12,650,000, being the expected range between the upper limit of $13,200,000 and a conservative valuation of $12,100,000.
To the extent that it is a relevant consideration, N Property was valued at $10,100,000 and AA Property at $2,550,000. It is apparent that the difference between Mr LL and Mr MM predominantly relates to N Property comprising approximately 250 hectares.
The difference in valuation between Mr LL and Mr MM is $4,900,000.
Mr MM considered the direct comparison method but cautioned that because “this methodology requires subjective judgment by the Valuer to determine value”[7] the application of the method may have a lower level of reliability where the subject land involves multiple land classifications and a range of different improvements.
[7] Mr MM’s valuation report dated 16 November 2023, page 41.
Mr MM considered that there was shortage of sales of comparable properties and as such he relied upon open market transactions of smaller holdings. Of particular note, was the focus by Mr MM on “sales evidence [that] has been divided into [production] and Grazing sales to correspond with the respective country types”.[8]
[8] Mr MM’s valuation report dated 16 November 2023, page 28.
Mr MM used the comparison sales to determine the following dollar rate per hectare for different country types:[9]
-Open to Light [tree cover] Grazing ([N Property]) – $ 45,000 per ha;
-Open to Light [tree cover] Lifestyle/Grazing ([AA Property]) – $ 50,000 per ha;
-Former Grazing with Light Regrowth – $ 25,000 per ha;
-Native Bushland – $ 10,000 per ha.
[9] Mr MM’s valuation report dated 16 November 2023, page 38.
The application of the summation method allows an assessment of the individual components of the property with a separate consideration of building improvements that add value to the land.
CONCLUSION
Leave to call a separate adversarial witness should only be given in limited circumstances and with caution.
The Full Court in Marcin & Marcin (2020) FLC 93-956 said as follows:-
33.Litigants are not permitted to call adversarial expert evidence which they consider to be more favourable simply because of their dissatisfaction with the evidence proffered by a single expert.
It is also not controversial that “the mere expression of an opinion as to value by another expert, no matter how substantially contrary it is to that of the single expert, does not in and of itself constitute “a substantial body of opinion” within the meaning of the rule”. (See Salmon & Salmon [2020] FamCAFC 134 at [35])
It is readily expected that whilst there are a number of different valuation methodologies that can be applied, in the exercise of valuing the Town O property Mr LL considered that a comparison or comparable sales methodology was best suited to the exercise, whilst Mr MM had less confidence in the comparison methodology and adopted a summation method which focused on differing land types and the dollar value per hectare with the addition of an amount for improvements.
The result is that two appropriately qualified experts have each considered the valuation approach differently and have given emphasis to alternate valuation methodologies, resulting in a difference of $4,900,000.
The application of the Rules in respect of the focus on the appointment of a single expert has, at its core, a focus on case management and the efficient and expeditious determination of matters either by the parties being able to conclude a balance sheet of assets and liabilities and then consider a settlement or in, the absence of agreement, the more efficient conduct of proceedings.
It is axiomatic that significant emphasis and weight must be given to case management however, as it was acknowledged by the High Court in Aon Risk Services Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27, there is an overarching consideration that considerations of case management with the further corollary that the application of the Rules relating to single expert evidence must be subservient to the interests of justice.
Bringing to account the different approaches adopted by each of the valuers and the outcome representing a substantial difference both in terms of a proportion of the Town O property but also in terms of the likely property of the parties, it is appropriate that leave be given to the husband to call separate adversarial evidence from Mr MM.
Whilst not a significant focus in the determination of the husband’s application, it is noted that Mr MM’s report is a concluded document and given that the proceedings are now listed part‑heard to February 2024, the issues are appropriately joined and there is not likely to be any prejudice caused to either of the parties.
Whilst not part of the orders made, it is appropriate that I make orders that there be a conference of the valuers with a view to either an agreement being reached such that the valuers can have confidence in an agreed amount or that the valuers highlight the areas of agreement and disagreement.
THE SUBURB W PROPERTY
The application of the wife for Mr LL, in his capacity as the single expert, to update his August 2023 valuation of the Suburb W property is a button pressed faintly.
It is not suggested that there is any basis for a revaluation other than the argument that three months have passed since the date of the valuation and five months will have passed by the time the part-heard trial recommences.
Other than the broad concept that where possible, the property of the parties should be the subject of recent valuation if possible and appropriate to do so, no other evidence is presented by the wife in support of the application.
I do not ignore the matters raised by Mr LL in his updated valuation report dated 21 August 2023 where at 3.2, he brings to account the general market and specific market commentaries.
It is not likely that there has been any significant change in the nature and presentation of the Suburb W property and to the extent that its value may well be affected by the prevailing market conditions in respect of the Sydney housing market as discussed by Mr LL, they are matters about which he is able to give evidence at the final hearing.
I dismiss the Application seeking that Mr LL update his valuation of the Suburb W property.
THE SUBURB J PROPERTY
In his capacity as a single expert valuer, Mr LL valued the Suburb J property on 10 February 2021 for $5,725,000 and on 12 April 2023 revalued the property at $9,725,000.
The wife seeks that Mr LL be jointly instructed to provide an updating valuation report as to the current fair market value of the Suburb J property.
Orders were made on 23 November 2023 giving leave to the wife’s solicitors to put questions to Mr LL in respect of his report. The questions are contained in a letter from the wife’s solicitors dated 24 November 2023 and are the subject of prompt response by Mr LL dated 28 November 2023.[10]
[10] Yasmin Baird’s affidavit filed 30 November 2023.
Mr LL’s reply has relevant application:[11]
[11] Yasmin Baird’s affidavit filed 30 November 2023, page 11.
I was not instructed at any point to carry out a valuation over the subject property on an ‘as if complete’ basis, nor was I supplied as part of my instructions with plans and detailed costings, a contract to build, or quantity surveyors calculations with regard [to] construction of the proposed improvements upon the site, to utilise in such a valuation exercise. The subject property was thus never valued on an approach which contemplated its ‘as if complete value’.
I have not been advised of nor do I know what the building lettable floor areas will be upon completion. I have no detail on proposed schedule of finishes, level of fitout or inclusions.
If I was to be instructed to provide a valuation on an ‘as if complete basis’, the 4 sales specified within these questions raised by [the wife’s solicitors] would be of some relevance, and would certainly bear further investigation and analysis. However, I consider it would then be necessary to more deeply investigate each of these transactions, with formal searching to establish details such as:
a) Passing rental and whether it be net or gross;
b) Escalation or market review clauses;
c) Term of lease and options granted;
d) What (if any) outgoings are recoverable;
e) Incentives included;
f) Quality of tenant and security of income/guarantees; and
g) Any specific conditions or qualifications.
(As per original)
Mr LL did not inspect the property for the purposes of his update valuation of 12 April 2023 and he adopted the same approach as originally utilised which was not on the basis of ‘as if complete’ valuation less cost to complete.
The following extract from the letter from the wife’s solicitors to the husband’s solicitors dated 30 November 2023 provides some further insight as to the potential basis upon which the wife sought that Mr LL reconsider his valuation:
turning then to the [Suburb J] property, we accept that it was valued “as is” and that the update was issued on 12 April 2023, some six months ago. Again, by the nature of the exercise, the comparable properties considered by the expert were historical and of those that were identified, none of which were in the 2023 calendar year.
It is apparent that Mr LL did not consider the issue of the date of the sale of comparable properties to be of such significance that it would cause him to reassess his valuation opinion.
During the course of submissions, leave was given to the wife to tender documents obtained via a subpoena to the ANZ Bank who are the bankers for the husband.
The documents relied upon are Credit Assessment Memorandum dated 7 December 2022 and 7 June 2023 (exhibit “5”). The Credit Memorandums focus on the value of the Suburb J property. In 2022 the bank considered that the property was last valued on an is basis on 1 February 2021 with a fair market value of $5,725,000. It was noted that at that time, the building was still under construction. The document notes that the bank considered the construction of the property had been completed and that it was likely there would be a significant increase in the fair market value.
The bank commissioned its own valuation report of the Suburb J property and a report was prepared by PP Real Estate dated 1 February 2023.
The aspect of the report that was of interest to the respondent was a valuation of the Suburb J property of $20,450,000 subject to the completion of construction estimated by the applicant at the time to be in the sum of $350,000.
The issue is not that there is a valuation obtained by the bank for its own purposes that places a higher value on the property than assessed by Mr LL. It is not suggested that the bank valuation was prepared for any other purpose than as sought by the bank.
The issue therefore, is whether matters raised in the subpoenaed documents (exhibit “5) raise any aspect that would properly support a further valuation of the Suburb J property taking into account the costs involved of that exercise.
At the conclusion of submissions, I was not satisfied that there was agreement as to the state of the construction and development of the commercial premises situate on the Suburb J property.
The assertion on behalf of the husband was that the property as at the date of the hearing had not changed as at the date of inspection by Mr LL.
It should be a matter of ready resolution however the level of controversy is such that I consider it is appropriate for Mr LL to reconsider the valuation of the Suburb J property.
I make orders as appear at the commencement of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding eighty-seven (87) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman. Associate:
Dated: 15 December 2023
2
3
1