Prentice & Maheris (No 2)

[2010] FamCA 361

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRENTICE & MAHERIS (NO. 2) [2010] FamCA 361

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Valuation issue

APPLICANT: MR PRENTICE

RESPONDENT: MS MAHERIS

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11939 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 3 MAY 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: MELBOURNE

PLACE HEARD: MELBOURNE

JUDGMENT OF: YOUNG J

HEARING DATE: 3 MAY 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: MR THOMPSON

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: AITKEN PARTNERS

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr STRUM

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: TAUSSIG CHERRIE & ASSOCIATES

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Prentice & Maheris is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11939 of 2007

MR PRENTICE

Applicant

And

MS MAHERIS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. A further and continuing issue has arisen immediately after lunch, in respect of my earlier ruling and ex tempore judgment upon the valuation date and process of the two properties at M Street, M, and 1 K Street, K.   It seems as if, shortly prior to lunch, an email was sent by the husband’s solicitors to Mr PG, valuer, requesting that he proceed to obtain a valuation, presumably from available documents, of the two subject properties, as at the date of marriage.  A copy of that email of instruction was sent to the wife’s solicitors.  Mr Strum addressed the court on the basis that an effective restraint that should be lodged against Mr PG from undertaking any task until the court has formally ruled in favour of that process, and that he have the authorisation of the court to attend to such a valuation. 

2. I have delivered ex tempore reasons for judgment and given a general directive, but not made any specific order prior to lunch, and that judgment will be transcribed for the benefit of the parties and the court.  I have carefully listened to Mr Strum, and the response from Mr Thompson.  I am aware that the matter came to Mr Thompson’s attention over the weekend and he then rang and gave certain instructions to his solicitor.  Whether the matter was progressed over the weekend, and confirmed by letter, and email this morning, or otherwise, what I understand, and what I will permit is, at the husband’s expense, for Mr PG to prepare, by tomorrow morning, a written report for solicitors, and not for the court, upon his sworn position of the value of those two subject properties, as at June 1997. 

3. The issue reserved for further submission is both the relevance of, and the admissibility of, such evidence in the context that the husband and those previous and current solicitors acting for him have not sought to obtain that information prior to the last 48 hour period, or thereabouts.  Whether there is, therefore, any prejudice, in a commercial and financial sense, to the wife’s case, or otherwise, whether it is proper and just for that valuation to be available and to be relied upon, is a matter for further submission. 

4. I will have these additional reasons transcribed, placed upon the court file and made available to the parties.  I will not make any further specific order, but the direction that is inherent in those ex tempore reasons is clear.  I encourage solicitors to talk over this issue, and/or any valuation arising, both as to the quantum, and as to the relevance and admission thereof into evidence, but otherwise, I will rule on that matter at a date and time convenient to the court and, if relevant, Mr PG.

I certify that the preceding paragraphs are
a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein
of The Honourable Justice Young

………………………………………………………..
Associate: