Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)

Gronchi & Toyoda (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 111  
File number	BRC 2443 of 2021	
		
Judgment of	WILSON J	
		
Date of judgment	24 February 2025	
		
Catchwords	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – trial of proceeding – the parties have not prepared a balance sheet – the applicant wishes to adduce valuation evidence – no application of his intention to do so.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant requests another judge to hear the property case – whether the overall veracity of the applicant has been adversely determined in parenting application – the case is transferred to the National Assessment Team for allocation. 	
		
Cases cited	Aon Risk Management Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 61  	
		
Number of paragraphs	19	
		
Date of hearing	24 February 2025 	
		
Place	Melbourne	
		
Counsel for the applicant	Ms R. Teicher	
		
Counsel for the respondent	Mr S. Casey	

ORDERS
	BRC 2443 of 2021	
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)	
BETWEEN	MR GRONCHI
Applicant
	
AND	MS TOYODA
Respondent

order made by	WILSON J	
DATE OF ORDER	24 FEBRUARY 2025	

THE COURT ORDERS THAT – 

1.	The case is transferred to the National Assessment Team for allocation to the appropriate judicial officer in division 2 of this court.
2.	Any valuation evidence to be adduced in this proceeding is to be adduced by a single expert, such evidence to be filed and served by 4.00pm on 23 May 2025. 
3.	Payment for any valuation evidence in accordance with these reasons is to be made at first instance by the applicant and any adjustment about any such payment can be addressed by the trial judge.

Note:	The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Gronchi & Toyoda has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILSON J 
1	Late last year I delivered reasons and made orders in a contested international relocation application in this litigation. The property component of the dispute between the parties remained. The trial of the property aspect of the case was fixed to commence today with a view to it running for four days this week.  
2	On 13 February and again on 18 February 2025 I heard directions about the commencement of the trial of the property aspect of the case. Both parties assured me no impediment existed to the commencement. The applicant informed me that he would be represented by a Melbourne barrister, and Mr Casey of counsel from the Queensland Bar informed me that he would appear on behalf of the respondent.
3	At no stage did any party or legal representative inform me that complications of any description would arise in the running of the property trial.  
4	Today, soon after appearances were announced (Ms Teicher of counsel for the applicant and Mr Casey of counsel for the respondent), Ms Teicher informed me that her client’s court book had not been produced in accordance with previous directions. She offered no explanation for that.  She then said no balance sheet had been prepared, still less had one been agreed, as to the items or their values. That surprised me having regard to there having been no prior notice to me of any procedural or mechanical obstacles to a punctual commencement of the property trial. I told counsel that I had not previously encountered a trial of a property proceeding in which a balance sheet (or even competing versions of a balance sheet) was not before the court.  
5	The case was stood down twice with a view to the parties discussing the possibility of an overall resolution of the litigation or with a view to agreeing on the items that would represent the balance sheet. Despite time being given, no resolution of the case in the overall was reached nor were the parties able to agree on the items representing the assets and liabilities in issue or the amounts attributable to each.
6	After hearing from each counsel I was told that the assets in issue in this case were 11 in number. They were – 
(a)	a jewellery item, the valuation attributed by the respondent being $14,000 whereas the applicant attributed being $52,000 to it and in respect to which no valuation evidence existed;
(b)	the valuation of the company Q Pty Ltd in which the respondent is the sole director and shareholder the only value I was told being an amount of $49,500 held in cash in respect of which the applicant said he required a valuation whereas the respondent said the value was the cash held by the company;
(c)	R Pty Ltd which, it was said, held cash of $41,000, an amount on which both applicant and respondent agreed;
(d)	Motor Vehicle 1, the agreed value in which was $28,000;
(e)	Motor Vehicle 2, the agreed value of which was $5,000;
(f)	used furniture said by the respondent to be valued at $3,750 whereas the applicant asserted a value of approximately $50,000 yet no valuation evidence existed to support either figure of $3,750 or $50,000;
(g)	the sum of $9,500 claimed by the respondent made up as to $7,500 in shares held by the respondent and as to $2,000 in cash, which the applicant stated needed to be valued;
(h)	the agreed sum of $225,000 being the agreed proceeds of sale of real estate;
(i)	agreed sums in respect of the respondent’s superannuation ($275,000) and the applicant’s superannuation ($22,137 in one fund and $41,527 in a second fund); and
(j)	a part property payment made to the respondent in the agreed sum of $200,000.
7	Parties are bound by the way they conduct their cases. Agreed sums need not be the subject of evidence as to the asset or its agreed value. Both parties were represented by counsel when those agreed amounts and items were given to me today.  
8	That left only a few disputed items. They were –  
(a)	the jewellery item and its value;
(b)	the value of Q Pty Ltd;
(c)	the identity and value of used furniture, and 
(d)	the value of shares, plus cash aggregating $9,500.
9	During the course of debate today I told counsel that it was common for litigation in division 1 of this court to cost parties up to $40,000 per day. Using a trial duration of four days, as previously given by the parties, the overall cost to each party of the property component of this case may be as much as $160,000. Whether any of that is recoverable depends on whether any order will be made that deviates from the more usual order that each party pays his, her, or its own costs. However, using the differentials of the currently disputed amounts, several things emerge, namely – 
(a)	in respect of the jewellery item, the amount in contention between the parties is $38,000 ($52,000 less $14,000);
(b)	the applicant gave no contrary figure to the value of Q Pty Ltd, asserting instead that amounts in the nature of add backs would be agitated, although he gave no inkling as to the nature and value of those amounts whereas the respondent stated the cash held by that company and hence its only value was $49,500;
(c)	the used furniture’s value was somewhere between the respondent’s value of $3,750 and the applicant’s disputed asserted value of $50,000;
(d)	in respect of the shares (plus $2,000 in cash) the value was an unspecified amount said by the applicant to be more than $9,500.
10	The applicant insists on valuation evidence being adduced despite the fact that he was previously ordered to engage in the process of obtaining that evidence and he failed to do so. He is the moving party in this litigation by reason of his status as the applicant. It is wholly unsatisfactory for him to appear on the first day of trial and tell me steps that should have been done – by him – which have not been done to prevent this trial from proceeding especially when he assured me as recently as two weeks ago that the case was ready for trial.  
11	Had I been told the true position that the case was very far from being ready I could have made arrangements for the valuable resources of the court to be devoted to meritorious and genuinely disputed cases, especially in view of the observations of the High Court in Aon Risk Management Services Australia Limited v Australian National University.
12	The determination of contentious items in dispute are unlikely to warrant the expenditure of amounts associated with their determination. A large disparity will emerge in the valuations compared to the cost thereof.  
13	In my view, it is proper to make orders about valuation evidence but in a manner that requires the applicant to obtain that valuation evidence by a single expert at his own expense, such expense to be adjusted if thought appropriate at trial.  
14	Where to from here?  
15	At paragraph 136 of my reasons in the parenting aspect of this case I made observations about the applicant’s credit.  There I said the following – 
“As an overview, I am of view that the father did not faithfully discharge his duty to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  That is a witness’s duty, according to the High Court in Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd.”
16	The applicant has asked for another judge to hear this property case on the basis that I have or may have prejudged his overall veracity. Counsel of the respondent did not meaningfully oppose the point. For that matter, it was me who raised the point. All parties remained silent on the issue until today.  
17	It is essential for all litigants to have full faith and confidence in the curial process.  In view of my earlier comments, I can understand why another judge is to be preferred.  However, the amounts now in issue are modest and more suited for division 2 of this court. I order the case to be transferred to the National Assessment Team for allocation to the appropriate judicial officer in division 2.
18	I further order that any valuation evidence to be adduced in this proceeding is to be adduced by a single expert, such evidence to be filed and served by 4.00pm on 23 May 2025. That is three months from today.  
19	Payment for any valuation evidence in accordance with these reasons is to be made at first instance by the applicant and any adjustment about any such payment can be made by the trial judge.

I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Wilson.	

Associate: 

Dated:	26 February 2025