L & L

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, comprising Finn, Holden, and Strickland JJ, considered an appeal concerning the valuation of a party's company and the treatment of certain financial matters during the parties' separation. The primary dispute revolved around the valuation of the husband's company, P, with the wife arguing for a valuation based on future maintainable earnings ($409,121), while the husband contended for a valuation based on net tangible assets ($144,450). The wife also challenged the admission of the husband's company valuation, arguing it was filed late and contradicted representations made by the husband to a lending body. Further grounds of appeal related to the husband's failure to make mortgage payments on the former matrimonial home, his retention of rental income from various properties, and his failure to pay council rates on certain properties.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in accepting the husband's valuation of his company based on net tangible assets, and whether the husband's valuation evidence should have been admitted given its timing and potential contradiction of prior representations. Additionally, the court had to determine if the trial judge erred in failing to account for the husband's retention of rental income and his failure to pay mortgage instalments and council rates as notional assets or liabilities in the division of the parties' property. The wife sought to have these amounts brought to account as either liabilities of the husband or notional assets to be divided.

The Full Court addressed the grounds of appeal concerning the company valuation. While acknowledging the wife's submission that the husband's valuation was filed out of time, the court found no substance in this complaint, noting that there was sufficient time for accountants to confer and that procedural fairness was maintained. Regarding the contradiction of representations to a lending body, the court referred to the principle in *Jordan v Jordan* that a party may be declined evidence contradicting prior representations made to gain an advantage. However, the court did not elaborate on its application of this principle to the facts. The court also considered the grounds relating to the separation period, including the husband's failure to pay mortgage instalments, his retention of rents, and his failure to pay rates. The wife's claims in these regards were detailed, seeking specific sums representing her half-share of the outstanding mortgage debt, retained rents, and unpaid rates.

The court's decision on these matters was not fully detailed in the provided text, but it indicated that grounds 3, 6, 7, and 8 all concerned events during the separation period. The wife's "Minute of Orders Sought" revealed her specific financial claims arising from the husband's conduct, including sums related to the mortgage shortfall, retained cottage rent, rent from a Queensland property, and council rates on Queensland properties. The wife's affidavit provided context for these claims, highlighting the husband's continued residence in the former matrimonial home, his cessation of mortgage payments, and his retention of rental income without accounting for it.