Zegna & Zegna

The proceedings involved Mr. Zegna (Applicant) and Ms. Zegna (First Respondent), along with Mr. F. Zegna (Second Respondent), Ms. N. Zegna (Third Respondent), and L Pty Ltd (Fourth Respondent). The dispute concerned the construction of a property that was incomplete at the time of separation. The Second to Fourth Respondents, who are the husband's father, mother, and an associated corporation, claimed interest on construction costs, asserting a contractual basis for this claim. A significant point of contention was the calculation of this interest, which differed from an agreement to compromise previously reached between the Wife and the Second to Fourth Respondents.

The court was required to determine the admissibility and relevance of evidence presented by the Second to Fourth Respondents, particularly concerning their claim for interest. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the accountant's evidence, which included schedules of payments and interest calculations, was admissible or should be struck out as prejudicial, irrelevant, or lacking probative value. The court also needed to assess whether to depart from the existing agreement to compromise regarding the construction costs and the associated interest.

Harper J applied section 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to exclude evidence deemed inadmissible, prejudicial, or likely to cause an undue waste of time. The court found that the accountant's schedules failed to identify who made the payments, varied interest rates without identifying their source, and appeared to have been prepared for the purposes of the proceedings. Crucially, the court noted that the notations of 12 March 2018 clearly recorded an agreement to compromise between the Wife and the Second to Fourth Respondents regarding construction costs. Finding no reason to depart from this agreement, the court limited the Second to Fourth Respondents' claim for interest to that which could be calculated on the compromise amount of $999,436. Consequently, the court ruled that the accountant's calculations were irrelevant and of no utility in quantifying the claim.