Loomis & Ors and Thurston

Case

[2014] FamCA 305

13 May 2014


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Loomis & Ors and Thurston [2014] FamCA 305 [2014] FamCA 305 13 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Forrest presided over applications made by Mr Loomis and Ms Thurston concerning property and parenting matters. The dispute involved the valuation of various assets, including company shareholdings, a United Kingdom property, personal items, and a superannuation fund, as well as the transfer of parenting proceedings.

The court was required to determine the process for obtaining valuations of the parties' significant assets, including shareholdings in three companies (L Limited, C Pty Ltd, and T Pty Ltd), a property located in the United Kingdom, specific personal items, and interests in the R Superannuation Fund. Additionally, the court needed to address the transfer of parenting proceedings between the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court.

Justice Forrest ordered the transfer of the parenting component of the proceedings to the Federal Circuit Court. For the property matters, the court directed the appointment of single experts to value the specified assets. Ms Thurston was given the responsibility of selecting these experts from provided lists for company shareholdings, the UK property, and personal items. The court also mandated that the same expert accountant would value the superannuation fund and address disputed factual issues regarding withdrawals and fund compliance. The costs of these valuations were to be initially shared equally between the parties, with the ultimate apportionment to be determined at trial. The court also set deadlines for updated financial statements and vacated a previously scheduled hearing, listing a new hearing date.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Discovery

  • Expert Evidence

  • Jurisdiction

  • Remedies

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

7

Statutory Material Cited

5