Marlowe and Marlowe & Anor

In the matter of *Marlowe and Marlowe & Anor*, Cronin J considered a dispute between the parties concerning the disclosure of documents and the allocation of valuation costs in ongoing family law property proceedings. The wife had already received interim property orders totalling approximately $5 million, while the husband controlled entities holding substantially greater assets. The wife sought an order that the husband bear all valuation costs, whereas the husband contended that the wife should contribute half of these expenses from her recently received funds.

The court was required to determine the necessity of making orders regarding the disclosure of documents and the payment of valuation expenses. Specifically, the court considered whether the wife had been recalcitrant in her disclosure obligations and how the principles established in *Strahan* applied to the allocation of costs for the valuation of the significant assets controlled by the husband.

Cronin J reasoned that orders were necessary to facilitate the valuation of the Marlowe Group entities and other assets. The court acknowledged the husband's control over the majority of the marital assets and the wife's interim entitlement. The orders made by consent addressed the appointment of single experts for the valuation of the Marlowe Group entities, real property, plant, equipment, and vehicles, as well as the valuation of chattels. The court also made specific orders for the disclosure of financial statements and bank statements by the First Respondent, and for the authorisation of access to financial records by the Applicant's accountant.

By consent, the court ordered the appointment of single experts to value the Marlowe Group entities and other assets, with the First Respondent to bear the valuation expenses arising from these exercises, with the issue of the Applicant's contribution to these expenses reserved for the final hearing. Further orders were made concerning the disclosure of financial documents and the appointment of a chattels expert, with each party to be responsible for half of the chattels expert's fee. Certain paragraphs of the parties' applications were dismissed, with adjustments for payments made to be an issue for the final hearing.