Grace v Grace (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1321

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Grace v Grace (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1321 Hearing dates: 25 October to 2 November 2010; 4 November to 2 December 2010; 23-24 June & 22 July 2011 Decision date: 30 October 2012 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Brereton J Decision: Supplementary reasons given Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - adjustive property orders - Family Law Act, s 79 - valuation of property of parties available for division Legislation Cited: (CTH) Family Law Act 1975, s 79 Cases Cited: Grace v Grace [2012] NSWSC 976 Category: Consequential orders Parties: David Alexander Grace (plaintiff) Deborah Sharon Grace (first defendant) Julienne Grace (second defendant) Nevilda Holdings Pty Ltd (prov liq'r appted) (third defendant) Nevilda Investments Pty Ltd (prov liq'r appted) (fourth defendant) Dutchie Pty Ltd (sixth defendant) Phoenix Rising Investments Pty Ltd (seventh defendant) Representation: Counsel: D Williams SC w S Goodman (plaintiff) A Moses SC w D Stewart (first, second & seventh defendants) Solicitors: James Tuite & Associates (plaintiff) Clinch Long Letherbarrow Pty Ltd (first, second & seventh defendants) File Number(s): 2006/259566

Judgment 1In the substantive judgment in these proceedings [Grace v Grace [2012] NSWSC 976] delivered on 23 August 2012, I said - in connection with the identification and valuation of the property of the parties available for division for the purpose of Dr Julienne Grace's cross-claim for adjustive property orders under (CTH) Family Law Act 1975, s 79: 250 The evidence does not permit the exercise to be undertaken with precision, largely because there is no clear picture at any single date of Julienne's position, a matter for which she must bear responsibility. Nonetheless, the property of the parties as at or about the date of Colin's death may be summarised as in the following table. Notes explaining the various entries follow the table. As will become apparent, in respect of the shareholdings in the private companies, I have adopted the methodology used in the defendants' submissions, but as at an earlier date. This has usually involved substituting different revaluations of real property into financial statements for different years from those used in the submissions. To avoid excessively cluttering these reasons I have not set out the calculations in detail; but if the parties desire supplementary reasons in that respect they are at liberty to seek them, preferably before final orders are made. 2The invitation to seek supplementary reasons was made in connection with the valuation of the shareholdings in the private companies, namely Nevilda Investments, Nevilda Holdings, Grace Securities, Sharander, and N&H Grace Holdings. Supplementary reasons having been requested, I now set out in more detail the calculations which implement the methodology described above, namely (1) adoption of the methodology used in the defendants' submissions (which the plaintiff's reply submissions generally followed), (2) substitution of the financial statements for years more proximate to the date of notional adjustment (November 1992) where available, and (3) substitution of revaluations of real property more proximate to the date of notional adjustment. 3Nevilda Investments. As explained in the substantive judgment (at [260]), the defendants substituted into the Nevilda Investments accounts for the 1995 year, revaluations of real property as at that date. This is shown in the first column below. I used the valuations of the relevant properties as at January 1993 (ascertainable from the table of valuations in DX287) rather than May 1995, and substituted them into the 1993 accounts (ascertainable from the previous year column in the 1994 accounts in DX314) rather than the 1995 accounts. This is shown in the second column below. Defendants' Judgment: submission: 1993 valuations 1995 valuations and accounts and accounts 14 Lamrock 985,000 805,000 284 Bondi Rd 1,875,000 1,500,000 95-103 Wellington 1,705,000 1,560,000 726 Anzac 700,000 595,000 2/754 New Beach (1) 259,474 0 46 Boston (2) 264,106 0 Other non-current assets 83,800 53,130 Current assets 96,607 244,024 Total assets 5,968,987 4,757,154