Paino v Paino

The appeal concerned a dispute between Angela Paino (the appellant) and her former de facto partner, Angelo Paino (the respondent), regarding the adjustment of property interests. The primary judge had made orders concerning the division of property, and the appellant sought to appeal these orders. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included the admissibility of expert valuation evidence concerning properties owned by the respondent in Filicudi, Italy, and whether the primary judge erred in his assessment of the parties' non-financial contributions to the relationship. Specifically, the court considered whether the valuation report was wholly or substantially based on the expert's opinion, as relevant to section 79 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). Furthermore, the court examined whether the primary judge's evaluative assessment of the non-financial contributions was outside a reasonable range, as provided for by sections 20(1)(a) and 20(1)(b) of the *Property (Relationships) Act 1984* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It found that the primary judge had erred in rejecting the appellant's expert evidence regarding the Filicudi properties. The court reasoned that the expert report, while containing some factual information, was substantially based on the expert's opinion and therefore should have been admitted. The court also indicated that the primary judge's evaluative assessment of non-financial contributions might have been outside a reasonable range.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. The matter of quantifying specific amounts (A, B, and C) was referred to another judge for determination based on the existing expert reports and cross-examination. The question of final orders and costs at first instance was to be considered at a later date.