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

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

Corrected valuations and asset calculations result in Julienne being entitled to 33% (increased to 41% by survivorship), Deborah receiving 22% via Colin's will, and David 37%. Given the circumstances, alignments, and sufficiency of Julienne's share, no further adjustive property order under s 79 is appropriate.

Parties
Plaintiff: David Alexander Grace; First Defendant: Deborah Sharon Grace; Second Defendant: Julienne Grace; Third Defendant: Nevilda Holdings Pty Ltd (prov liq'r appted); Fourth Defendant: Nevilda Investments Pty Ltd (prov liq'r appted); Sixth Defendant: Dutchie Pty Ltd; Seventh Defendant: Phoenix Rising Investments Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Supplementary Reasons Decision
Outcome
No adjustive property order under s 79; orders to give effect to substantive judgment to be made.
Legal Topics
Adjustive Property Orders, Valuation of Property, Division of Matrimonial Property
Family Law Adjustive Property Orders Valuation of Property Division of Matrimonial Property

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

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

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders / Supplementary Reasons Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Valuation of shareholdings in private companies for purposes of adjustive property orders under Family Law Act s 79
  2. 2 Calculation of net divisible property and parties’ entitlements as at notional adjustment date
  3. 3 Appropriate apportionment of matrimonial property after death and succession

Ratio Decidendi

Corrected valuations and asset calculations result in Julienne being entitled to 33% (increased to 41% by survivorship), Deborah receiving 22% via Colin's will, and David 37%. Given the circumstances, alignments, and sufficiency of Julienne's share, no further adjustive property order under s 79 is appropriate.

Court Disposition

No adjustive property order under s 79; orders to give effect to substantive judgment to be made.