Renna & Renna [2026] FedCFamC1F 63 (2 February 2026)

1. The Husband, Mr Glenn F and Mr E be permitted to attend the property known as and situate at C Street, suburb D ("the [suburb D] property") on 10 February 2026 at or around 2:00pm for the purpose of inspection.
2. Mr E be permitted to inspect the suburb D property and dwelling.
3. That in the event the parties are unable to agree as to the value of any other asset in the asset pool by 4:00 pm on Friday 6 February 2026, the following shall apply:

(a) That by 4pm on 13 February 2026, the Wife shall select one of the three nominated valuers proposed by the Husband in the letter from Newnhams Solicitors dated 23 January 2026;

(b) In the event the Wife fails to make a selection by 4pm on 13 February 2026, the Husband is at liberty to select one of the three nominations and that person shall become the single expert valuer;

(c) By 17 February 2026, both parties will execute a joint letter of instruction, being the joint letter contained at Annexure I of the Husband's Affidavit filed with this application, amended to include the relevant valuer and the relevant assets to be valued; and

(d) In the event the Wife fails to execute the joint letter of instruction by 17 February 2026, the letter may issue without the signature of the Wife, together with a copy of this Order as an authority for the valuer to proceed in the absence of the Wife's signature.

1. The costs of the Husband and the Wife of today's hearing be reserved for future consideration.

1. Orders four (4) and seven (7) of the Husband's Application in a Proceeding filed 28 January 2026 were not pressed.

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 the pseudonym Renna & Renna has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The matter before this Court relates to property only and is listed for hearing before me for four days commencing 28 April 2026. By way of background, the Applicant ("the husband") and the Respondent ("the wife") were married in 2007 and separated in December 2023. The husband is 52 years old and is an executive. The wife is 47 years old and is currently unemployed. There are two children of the marriage, X and Y, but the proceedings do not relate to them, even though, of course, they are highly relevant in any property proceedings. The children live with the wife and spend time with the husband.
2. The present application relates to C Street, suburb D ("the former matrimonial home"). It derives from the husband's Application in a Proceeding filed 29 January 2026. It is supported by an affidavit of the husband dated 28 January 2026. The wife, who is currently representing herself, but apparently has recently received a grant of Legal Aid pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), has filed an affidavit dated 30 January 2026 ("the wife's affidavit").
3. It is trite that an application, even a discrete application like this, is decided on the basis of the evidence that is filed in the affidavits of the parties. Of course, in an interim application the evidence is not tested, nonetheless, it is the evidence filed upon which a Court makes a decision. The decision cannot be random. It cannot, for example, rely on evidence that is led from the bar table or told to the Court by the parties or their legal representatives during the course of the hearing.
4. There are a number of discrete issues relating to how, and who is to be present for, the purposes of a further valuation of the former matrimonial home. The first issue, and I sense this is the most important issue from the wife's perspective, is whether or not the husband should be allowed to attend the former matrimonial home with Mr F ("the husband's solicitor") and Mr E ("Mr E"), the proposed expert valuer, for the purposes of accessing the waterfront.
5. The wife has expressed to me concerns about her safety in these circumstances. Indeed, she has raised a number of issues with me this morning, which are only alluded to in her affidavit in the most general terms. She is concerned about her safety and would therefore prefer that the husband not attend the property for the purposes of the valuation, except unless access occurs through the waterfront itself.
6. In practical terms, that means the husband would not be able to access the former matrimonial home from the street. He would have to find another access and then meet his solicitor and Mr E and direct them down to the waterfront.
7. That is opposed on behalf of the husband, who says that, firstly, an injunction is made by consent that neither the husband nor the wife approach the other during the inspection. In addition, the submission is made in his proposal and the husband's evidence that he will at all times be accompanied by his solicitor, who, the Court notes is, a practitioner of much experience in this jurisdiction. As well as by Mr E, who likewise, is a valuer who frequently gives evidence in this Court. It is put that they are mitigating factors.
8. The wife conceded that even if the husband attended on the former matrimonial home, it would not be necessary for him to actually go through the former matrimonial home in order to access the waterfront. In addition, it is agreed that the wife's present partner, Mr B, could be present at the time of the inspection.
9. The issue for the Court is whether these assurances about the wife's safety are adequate in the circumstances. The Court has found, albeit not without some reluctance, that they are adequate, particularly in circumstances where the wife's affidavit refers to her concerns in such general and, with respect, ambiguous terms. In those circumstances, and given the protections that are proffered, I am satisfied that the husband can attend the former matrimonial home as proposed.
10. There was a concern about whether Mr E would be able to take photographs of the inside of the former matrimonial home for valuation purposes. I accept the submission made by senior counsel for the husband that taking such photographs is standard valuation practice. I note that the existing valuer has taken photographs for the purposes of the valuation. Again, I note the wife's concerns about privacy but, on balance, the valuation process needs to take place in accordance with standard practice.
11. I have made orders in relation to a process for the parties to resolve issues in relation to the valuation of any other assets, most of which, in accordance with the evidence, are items of personal property. I am satisfied that it is an appropriate way to deal with issues.
12. I make the observation that this is a case where there are clear issues of mistrust between the husband and the wife. I think that the wife would be assisted by legal representation to navigate these issues of mistrust, including her assertions of non-disclosure. At this late stage, and three months away from the final hearing, from the Court's perspective, it is critical to do everything possible to make sure that the matter is ready.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex-Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Altobelli.