Wender & Wender

Wender & Wender involved an appeal and a cross-appeal in a family law matter concerning the valuation of the husband's professional practice. The wife, the appellant, argued that the trial judge erred in applying the Family Law Rules instead of the Federal Circuit Court Rules regarding the admissibility of an alternative valuation report. The wife further contended that the trial judge's refusal to admit the report of a second expert constituted a denial of procedural fairness. The husband, the respondent, defended the trial judge's decision, asserting that the parties had agreed to the single expert and that it was within the judge's discretion to deny the wife's application. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in applying the Family Law Rules, whether the denial of the second expert's report constituted a denial of procedural fairness, and whether the trial judge correctly accepted the single expert's valuation. The court found that while there was no error in applying the Family Law Rules, the trial judge erred in accepting the valuation of the single expert due to an inappropriate application of the "value to the owner" methodology. The trial judge's failure to appreciate the significant differences between the methodologies used in the two reports was also noted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted for rehearing by a different judge. The cross-appeal, which challenged the costs orders, was also allowed in part, and the question of the costs of the valuations was remitted for rehearing. The court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the appeal and rehearing, issuing costs certificates to both parties in accordance with the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).