CITATION: Varley v Varley [2007] NSWSC 125 HEARING DATE(S): 21 February 2007
JUDGMENT DATE :
21 February 2007JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF: Campbell JA EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 21 February 2007 DECISION: Time for referee to report extended. Otherwise no direction given. CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE – reference questions to an expert – extent to which court should involve itself in ongoing conduct of the reference LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 PARTIES: John Anthony Varley - Plaintiff
Alexandria Margaret Varley - DefendantFILE NUMBER(S): SC 4946/04 COUNSEL: J F Chapple, solicitor - Plaintiff
M Paul, solicitor - DefendantSOLICITORS: Newnhams - Plaintiff
Paul & Paul - Defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EQUITY LIST
CAMPBELL JA
WEDNESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2007
4946/04 JOHN ANTHONY VARLEY v ALEXANDRIA MARGARET VARLEY
JUDGMENT – Ex Tempore
1 HIS HONOUR: In this matter some accounting questions have been submitted to a referee for inquiry and report. That referee, Ms Jennifer Exner, is an accountant with Horwath. The questions are questions that involved accounting matters.
2 In November of last year I extended the time for the defendant to lodge submissions with the referee, on the basis of a then estimate that three weeks, or thereabouts, would be needed for the defendant to lodge those submissions. The defendant has still not lodged any submissions.
3 The solicitor for the defendant comes to court today saying that various documents that have been served by the plaintiff are not adequate or comprehensible and that I should give directions that, in effect, set up the evidentiary framework in which the referee does her job, by specifying the kinds of information that the parties should be directed to provide to the referee, and by what date that information should be provided.
4 While the Court has power to give directions with respect to a reference (Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 20.21), it is contrary to the policy on which the Court conducts references for there to be the degree of involvement in a reference that the solicitor for the defendant seeks. The referee is in the best position to know what sort of material she needs to be able to complete her task and she can give directions for the parties to provide that material. Her power to conduct the proceedings in such manner as she thinks fit (UCP Rule 20.20) includes a power to direct particular parties to supply her with particular types of material by a particular time. She is entitled to complete her report on the basis of such material as is provided in accordance with her directions. If either party provides a referee with material that is in any way inadequate, and that inadequacy results in the reference report eventually not being adopted, the party who has provided the inadequate material might be at risk as to the costs of the reference.
5 The referee is confronted with a situation where, through no fault of hers, the time for the reference has blown out beyond what was initially anticipated. In my view, it is appropriate to recognise that reality, to a limited extent. I propose to extend the time for the referee to complete her report to Monday, 16 April 2007. It is a matter for the referee as to whether she wishes to give any further directions. If either of the legal advisors want to make submissions to the referee about directions they wish her to give, it would be sensible, in their client’s interest, for those submissions to be made promptly. It is a matter for the referee what she does in response to any such submissions.
6 I do not propose to interfere in the conduct of the reference, at the present time, to any greater extent than I have done by extending the time for completion of the report.
7 I stand the matter over for mention, before me, at 9.30 am on Tuesday, 1 May 2007.
8 I reserve the costs of today’s appearance.
- AGLC
- Varley v Varley [2007] NSWSC 125
- Case
- [2007] NSWSC 125
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was the extent to which it should become involved in the ongoing conduct of a reference to an expert. The court had to determine whether it should intervene in the expert's process of gathering evidence and determining asset values. The wife argued that the court needed to oversee the expert's work more closely to ensure a fair outcome, while the husband contended that the court should allow the expert to operate independently.
The court held that it should not become overly involved in the expert's process, provided that the expert was acting within the scope of their instructions and the principles of fairness were being upheld. The court emphasised that while it had a duty to ensure a fair outcome, it should not micromanage the expert's work unless there were clear grounds for concern. The judge concluded that the expert's role was to provide an independent assessment, and the court's role was to review the final report and ensure it was reasonable and fair.
The court ordered that the expert's report be accepted as the primary basis for determining the value of the disputed asset. The court also directed that any further issues regarding the conduct of the expert should be addressed through appropriate legal channels, rather than through direct court intervention.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.