HETT & SEER

[2019] FamCA 362

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HETT & SEER [2019] FamCA 362

FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Where the Husband provided a valuation for a property jointly held by the parties in City D, China – whether the Husband’s valuation was admissible evidence – where the valuation is an opinion – whether the valuation was an expert opinion – where the Husband is a real estate agent – where the Husband claims he has specialised knowledge based on his experience, study and training as a real estate agent – whether the valuation was an admission and thus an exception to the opinion rule – where the valuation cannot be construed to be an admission – where the evidence is found to not be admissible.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 55, 76, 79,81 and 142

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Frederick & Frederick [2019] FamCAFC 87

APPLICANT: Mr Hett

RESPONDENT: Ms Seer

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1020 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 4 June 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 4 June 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr C Othen

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Watts McCray Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. The Husband’s valuation of the property jointly held by the parties in City D, China, is not admissible as evidence.

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 Hett & Seer 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 CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1020 of 2018

Mr Hett

Applicant

And

Ms Seer

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. A central issue in this undefended case is as to the value of property jointly held by the parties in China, in City D.  The only evidence as to the value of that property before me comes from the Husband in two forms.  The first is an assertion, for example, as seen in his Financial Statement, and the second is an opinion offered on a basis expressed by the Husband as:

   a)being given as he works in the real estate industry in Australia; and

   b)on the basis of what he has determined from his access to five widely used and prominent websites in order to establish a square metre value range and then to calculate the value of the property in City D. 

2. Despite this case being undefended the issues still require determination based upon admissible evidence. 

3. The first threshold to be crossed by the Husband's assertions as to value is that of relevance. 

4. Section 55 of…