Meint & Lyall [2026] FedCFamC1A 24, was an appeal heard by His Honour, Campton J, on 11 February 2026, against property orders made by a Division 2 Judge on 30 September 2025 after a final hearing. The wife appealed those Orders, but although raising 19 grounds originally, she prosecuted only four, being Grounds 1, 2, 4 and 16.
Grounds 1 and 2 – These two grounds were prosecuted together and can be summarised as the value of the husband’s shares in ‘B Pty Ltd’, both personally and via his corporate entity; and the trial judge erred in consideration of whether or not the husband sought to sell his shares in ‘B Pty Ltd’ and the value of the shares if not sold.
The husband was one of three shareholders in ‘B Pty Ltd’, with a 32.8% share. The other two shareholders, Mr H and Mr J, each held a 33.6% share. Both had given evidence that they would purchase the husband’s shareholding at a value equivalent to his debt amount, resulting in no payment to him and therefore no value to be attributed to ‘B Pty Ltd’ on the Balance Sheet.
A single expert report had given significant value to the husband’s interest but that opinion did not engage with the terms of the shareholders agreement5. This was significant particularly given the evidence of Mr H and Mr J as to their positions on purchasing the husband’s interest. In addition, there was evidence that attempts to sell ‘B Pty Ltd’ had been unsuccessful and that since the date of the valuation the financial position of ‘B Pty Ltd’ had deteriorated.
His Honour continued:
The thrust of the grounds is that the husband’s interests in B Pty Ltd ought to have been valued on the assumption that he would not be compelled to sell his interest and hence that ought to have equated to a fair value of that interest in the husband’s hands6.
The unchallenged evidence was that the only market for the sale of the husband’s shares were the other founding shareholders who, if they exercised that option would also set the sale price which would result in no payment to the husband.
Ground 16 can be summarised as challenging the trial Judge’s exercise of discretion in relation to any section 79(5)7 adjustments as being beyond the bounds of a reasonable ambit of discretion. Campton J found that this ground conflated multiple categories, was misconceived, forlorn and therefore fails.
The value of the husband’s interest in ‘B Pty Ltd’ was a factual conclusion that was open on a consideration of all of the evidence and accordingly these grounds were found to have no merit.
Ground 4 was that the trial judge erred in respect of the value of Super Fund 2, being a self-managed superannuation fund of which the husband was the only member. The only evidence at trial was a value as at 30 June 2024 and the trial judge then determined to ascribe no value to this fund without updating evidence. This was not withstanding that the Single Expert had provided a value as at March 2023 of $458,000.
The Single Expert had determined that the appropriate method of valuing the husband’s interest in Super Fund 2 was by reference to its underlying assets, the primary asset being a 50% interest in a company.
There was a concession on appeal that the trial judge had misidentified the 30 June 2024 financial statements of that company but not a concession that the judge had then erred in his attributing no value to Super Fund 2.
Campton J, found that the trial judge was presented with confounding challenges in this regard, as a result of the deficiencies in the evidence of the parties in respect of Super Fund 2 but that the conclusion to attribute no value to the husband’s value in this fund was not open on the evidence.
His Honour found this ground was established. Having done so, the wife sought that the value of $458,000 be included in the asset pool but that the trial judge’s conclusion of an overall distribution to the wife of 32.5% of the total asset pool should remain unchanged.
The husband sought that the matter be remitted to a Division 2 judge, other than the trial judge, on this issue alone. The value of the husband’s interest in a self-managed superannuation fund. As the error was an error of law, Camptonl J determined that the appropriate course was to remit the matter as sought by the husband.
Both the Appellant and Respondent were granted Costs Certificates.
Meint & Lyall — A single expert report that fails to engage with the terms of a shareholders agreement will carry limited weight where other shareholders hold the power to set the sale price of the departing shareholder’s interest.
The Court cannot simply attribute no value to a superannuation fund where (allebit out of date) expert valuation evidence exists – doing so in this case, resulted in remittal. Practitioners should ensure valuation evidence is current and complete at trial, as gaps in evidence create appellate risk for both parties.