Quill & Quill (No. 2)

In the matter of *Quill & Quill (No. 2)*, the Honourable Justice McGuire considered an application by the husband, Mr Quill, seeking a review of a Senior Registrar's decision. The dispute arose from the husband's substantive application under s 79A(1)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to set aside final property orders made by consent in 2010. The wife, Ms Quill, opposed both the substantive application and the husband's interlocutory application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband should be granted leave to adduce evidence from a forensic accountant, Mr KK, by way of an expert report. This evidence was sought in relation to the husband's substantive application to set aside the 2010 consent orders, which involved significant assets including real property and a farming partnership. The husband's application for leave to rely on this expert evidence had previously been dismissed by another judge in respect of Mr KK, but the current application sought a review of that dismissal.

Justice McGuire reasoned that the husband's substantive application relied on allegations of a miscarriage of justice and a breach of trust, specifically that the wife held certain assets on trust for the husband to avoid a creditor. The court noted that the husband himself could provide evidence regarding the nature and recoverability of a debt owed to him by a Mr NN, which was a key asset in question. The court found that matters concerning the prospects of debt recovery and potential capital gains tax liabilities were issues of fact for the court to determine, assisted by legal authorities, rather than subjects for expert forensic accounting opinion. Consequently, the court concluded that there was neither necessity nor relevance for the proposed expert evidence from Mr KK in the context of the s 79A application.

Accordingly, the husband's application seeking a review of the Senior Registrar's orders was dismissed. The substantive application remained listed for trial on 27 September 2021. The court also made an order pursuant to rule 19.05 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) that it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend the hearing.