Valentina & Malley

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Valentina & Malley [2023] FedCFamC2F 1167

File number:

MLC 3523 of 2022

Judgment of:

JUDGE O'SHANNESSY

Date of judgment:

28 August 2023

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – interim procedural orders – application to adduce evidence from an adversarial expert contrary to the evidence of the jointly retained single expert – application adjourned – application for conference of experts.    

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Evidence Act1995 (Cth) s 144

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 7.08, 7.09, 7.10, 7.21

Cases cited:

Artinos & Artinos (No 6) [2023] FedCFamC1F 652

Division:

Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs:

24

Date of hearing:

28 August 2023

Place:

Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Gardiner

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Elias Hanna Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Kildea

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Sayer Jones

ORDERS

MLC 3523 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS VALENTINA

Applicant

AND:

MR MALLEY

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE O'SHANNESSY
DATE OF ORDER:	28 AUGUST 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That by close of business 29 August 2023 the Applicant’s solicitor provide to the following documents:

(a)A copy of Mr B’s Report dated 29 March 2023 relating to the C Street, Suburb D property to Ms E; and

(b)A copy of Ms E’s Report dated 11 August 2023 to Mr B. 

2.The parties forthwith instruct MR B and MS E (“the experts”) to:

(a)confer regarding the retrospective valuation of the C Street, Suburb D property as at late 2010 provided by each of them in their reports published on 29 March 2023 and 11 August 2023 respectively;

(b)endeavour to agree upon the retrospective valuation conclusion; and

(c)prepare a short and concise joint statement addressing the following questions:

(i)If practicable, their agreement as to the retrospective value of the Suburb D property as at late 2010;

(ii)If not practicable to reach agreement, then each expert set out in short summary:

A.Their opinion on the issue of valuation having regard to all relevant sales evidence and any other matters going to the formation of opinion as to value;

B.The factual basis and reasoning process in support of that opinion, including any reasons why the other expert’s opinion and reasoning process is not agreed; and

C.Identify what action, if any, may be taken to resolve this issue.

3.That the Application in a Case and Response to an Application in a Case filed 21 August and 25 August respectively be adjourned to the first day of Hearing currently listed on 11 September 2023.

4.That oral submissions regarding the question of the admissibility of adversarial evidence be limited to 10 minutes per Counsel.

5.The Applicant’s oral application to obtain an updated valuation of the Suburb F property is dismissed.

6.The Court certifies that this was a matter appropriate to brief counsel to appear this day.

7.The parties’ costs of and incidental to today’s Hearing be reserved.

AND THE COURT NOTES…