RILEY & RILEY - [2016] FamCA 535

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RILEY & RILEY

[2016] FamCA 535

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Valuation of a business as a going concern – hearing on a discrete issue by agreement – where there were two competing expert valuations leading to significantly different valuations after an unsuccessful attempted sale of the business – net tangible assets valuation preferred.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 79, 79(2), 79(4)

Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545; [2013] FamCAFC 116
Georgeson & Georgeson (1995) FLC 92-618; 19 Fam LR 302
Harrison & Harrison (1996) FLC 92-682; 20 Fam LR 322
Hull & Hull (1983) FLC 91-360
Lenehan & Lenehan (1987) FLC 91-814; 11 Fam LR 615
Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605
Nettler & Nettler [2007] FamCA 1374
Nettler & Nettler [2009] FamCAFC 185
Reynolds & Reynolds (1985) FLC 91-632; 10 Fam LR 388
Sapir & Sapir (No 2) (1989) FLC 92-047
Scott & Scott [2006] FamCA 1379
Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Turnbull & Turnbull & Ors (1991) FLC 92-258; 15 Fam LR 81
Wilde & Wilde [2007] FamCA 1044

APPLICANT:

Mr Riley

RESPONDENT:

Ms Riley

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

9926

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

1 July 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Thornton J

HEARING DATE:

3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 March 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Jeremy W St John QC
Mr Thomas A Hutchings

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

M A Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Andrew G E Robinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mills Oakley Lawyers

Orders

The value of the business of the company Riley Pty Ltd is $909,356.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Riley & Riley has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9926/2011

Mr Riley

Applicant

And

Ms Riley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant husband and the respondent wife are in dispute about the alteration and valuation of their interests in the property acquired during their 15 year marriage. The key issue is the valuation of the business of Riley Pty Ltd (“the Company”) in which they are equal shareholders.
Because of the large amount of money already expended by the parties on legal costs in litigation leading up to the trial, the parties jointly proposed that the Court determine the discrete issue of the valuation of the business of the Company. This was with a view to the parties ultimately negotiating and attempting to settle the other issues relating to the alteration of property. Therefore the only current issue for determination is the value of the business of the Company.
As a result of previous litigation and Court orders, the parties jointly formally engaged accountant Mr S to attempt to sell the business of the Company from 18 December…

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 RILEY & RILEY

Details

AGLC: RILEY & RILEY [2016] FamCA 535
Case: [2016] FamCA 535
Decision Date: 1 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Riley & Riley*, Thornton J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was required to determine the value of the business of the company Riley Pty Ltd. The specific context of this valuation was not detailed in the provided extract, but it is clear that a judicial determination of the company's worth was necessary.

The central legal issue before the Court was to ascertain the precise monetary value of the business operated by Riley Pty Ltd. This required the application of appropriate valuation methodologies and legal principles to arrive at a figure that accurately reflected the company's worth.

Thornton J determined that the value of the business of Riley Pty Ltd was $909,356. This figure represents the Court's finding on the company's worth, arrived at after considering the relevant evidence and legal principles pertaining to business valuation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The value of the business of the company Riley Pty Ltd is $909,356.

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.