Paino v Paino [2008] NSWCA 276

Paino v Paino [2008] NSWCA 276

The primary judge erred in rejecting the expert report on the Filicudi properties, failed to assess and include their value as part of the respondent’s assets, and further erred in his evaluative allocation of the parties’ respective financial and non-financial contributions. The correct approach required admission of the expert report (or, alternatively, using the ‘do its best’ principle to value the Filicudi property), and a holistic, more equal assessment of contributions. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for determination of the value of the Filicudi properties, after which an appropriate adjustment can be calculated.

Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: Angela Paino; Respondent/cross Appellant: Salvatore Paino
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After Hearing Arguments
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Orders for further determination of asset values and final orders to follow.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Valuation of Property, De Facto Relationships, Property Adjustment, Contributions in Relationships, Disclosure of Assets
Evidence Family Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Valuation of Property De Facto Relationships Property Adjustment Contributions in Relationships Disclosure of Assets

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Paino

Appellant/cross Respondent

Salvatore Paino

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After Hearing Arguments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the joint expert report on the value of the Filicudi properties
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in his evaluation of the parties' respective contributions for property adjustment under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge should have included the Filicudi properties in the valuation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge erred in rejecting the expert report on the Filicudi properties, failed to assess and include their value as part of the respondent’s assets, and further erred in his evaluative allocation of the parties’ respective financial and non-financial contributions. The correct approach required admission of the expert report (or, alternatively, using the ‘do its best’ principle to value the Filicudi property), and a holistic, more equal assessment of contributions. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for determination of the value of the Filicudi properties, after which an appropriate adjustment can be calculated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Orders for further determination of asset values and final orders to follow.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Respondent ordered to pay appellant's costs of the appeal to date and to have a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act 1951 if otherwise entitled.