Minke & Minke (No 3) - [2024] FedCFamC1F 860

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Minke & Minke (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 860

File number SYC 9122 of 2022

Judgment of WILSON J

Date of judgment 11 December 2024

Catchwords FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –experts’ evidence – experts’ reports – application for leave to rely on adversarial expert witness report – application allowed.

Legislation
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 7.08(2)

Evidence Act 1995 s 55

Cases cited
Minke & Minke (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 157

Verdon v Verdon (2020) 62 Fam LR 573

Keevers & Keevers [2021] FedCFamC1F 338

Neales & Neales (2022) 64 Fam LR 592

Toma & Doyle [2022] FedCFamC1F 215

Woodcock v Woodcock (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 894

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Division Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs 20

Date of hearing 9 December 2024

Place Melbourne

Counsel for the applicant Mr G. Richardson SC

Solicitor for the applicant Barkus Doolan Winning

Counsel for the respondent Mr S. Williams KC

Solicitor for the respondent Walter & Elliott Family Lawyers Pty Ltd
ORDERS

SYC 9122 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN
MS MINKE

Applicant

AND
MR MINKE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

11 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT –
1.The applicant wife has leave to adduce evidence from Mr S in accordance with the affidavit of Mr S filed.
2.On or before Monday, 13 January 2025 Ms F, Ms D and Mr S must confer in relation to any issue arising from their respective valuation reports dated 25 January 2024 and 11 March 2024, the joint statement dated 31 May 2024 and Mr S’s valuation report dated 11 November 2024 and produce a further joint Statement by 7 February 2025 which –
(a)identifies the issues that are agreed and not agreed in respect of the value of J Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2011;
(b)if practicable seeks to narrow or otherwise reach agreement on any outstanding issue in respect of the value of J Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2011;
(c)identifies the reasons for disagreement on any issue in respect of the value of J Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2011 and records the contentions of each as to why his/her view should be preferred; and
(d)identifies what action (if any) may be taken or further information provided to resolve the outstanding issues.

3.The costs of all parties are reserved.

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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Minke & Minke (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Minke & Minke (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 860
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1F 860
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dealt with an application by Ms Minke to adduce evidence from an expert witness, Mr S. This application was in the context of a family law matter between Ms Minke and Mr Minke. The dispute centred around the valuation of J Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2011, which was a significant issue in their ongoing litigation. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms Minke should be granted leave to rely on the expert report of Mr S, and if so, under what conditions this should occur.

In granting the application, the court considered the need for clarity and resolution of the outstanding valuation issues. The court noted the importance of ensuring that all parties had the opportunity to address the evidence in a comprehensive manner. The court ordered that Ms Minke could adduce evidence from Mr S in accordance with his affidavit. Additionally, the court mandated a conference among the experts involved, namely Ms F, Ms D, and Mr S, to address the discrepancies in their respective valuation reports. This was to produce a joint statement by 7 February 2025 that would detail the agreed and disagreed issues, the reasons for any disagreements, and the potential actions to resolve these issues. The court emphasised the need for a transparent and collaborative approach among the experts to facilitate a fair and efficient resolution of the valuation dispute.

The final orders provided specific directions for the experts to collaborate and produce a joint statement by 7 February 2025. The court reserved the costs of all parties, indicating that these would be addressed at a later stage. This decision underscored the court's commitment to ensuring that the proceedings were conducted in a manner that facilitated the resolution of the underlying dispute. The orders reflected the court's intention to promote cooperation among the parties and their experts, aiming to resolve the valuation issues in a timely and effective manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 9122 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN

MS MINKE

Applicant

AND

MR MINKE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

11 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT –

1. The applicant wife has leave to adduce evidence from Mr S in accordance with the affidavit of Mr S filed.

2. On or before Monday, 13 January 2025 Ms F, Ms D and Mr S must confer in relation to any issue arising from their respective valuation reports dated 25 January 2024 and 11 March 2024, the joint statement dated 31 May 2024 and Mr S’s valuation report dated 11 November 2024 and produce a further joint Statement by 7 February 2025 which –

(a) identifies the issues that are agreed and not agreed in respect of the value of J Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2011;

(b) if practicable seeks to narrow or otherwise reach agreement on any outstanding issue in respect of the value of J Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2011;

(c) identifies the reasons for disagreement on any issue in respect of the value of J Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2011 and records the contentions of each as to why his/her view should be preferred; and

(d) identifies what action (if any) may be taken or further information provided to resolve the outstanding issues.

3. The costs of all parties are reserved.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number	SYC 9122 of 2022
Judgment of	WILSON J
Date of judgment	11 December 2024
Catchwords	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –experts’ evidence – experts’ reports – application for leave to rely on adversarial expert witness report – application allowed.
Legislation	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 7.08(2) Evidence Act 1995 s 55
Cases cited	Minke & Minke (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 157 Verdon v Verdon (2020) 62 Fam LR 573 Keevers & Keevers [2021] FedCFamC1F 338 Neales & Neales (2022) 64 Fam LR 592 Toma & Doyle [2022] FedCFamC1F 215 Woodcock v Woodcock (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 894 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Division	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs	20
Date of hearing	9 December 2024
Place	Melbourne
Counsel for the applicant	Mr G. Richardson SC
Solicitor for the applicant	Barkus Doolan Winning
Counsel for the respondent	Mr S. Williams KC
Solicitor for the respondent	Walter & Elliott Family Lawyers Pty Ltd

SYC 9122 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN	MS MINKE Applicant
AND	MR MINKE Respondent

ORDER MADE BY	WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER	11 DECEMBER 2024