B & B

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered an appeal concerning property settlement orders made in the Family Court. The appeal was brought by the husband, who challenged the adequacy of the reasons provided by the primary judge in making certain adjustments to the property pool. The dispute centred on whether the primary judge had adequately addressed the parties' contributions and made appropriate adjustments under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of alleged non-disclosure of assets by the wife.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the primary judge had erred in failing to provide sufficient reasons for: (a) the exclusion of certain assets from the property pool, (b) the notional adjustments made to the wife's contributions, and (c) the ultimate property settlement outcome. The husband argued that the primary judge's reasons were inadequate to demonstrate that the wife had made full and frank disclosure of her financial position, and that the adjustments made did not properly reflect the parties' respective contributions and future needs.

The Full Court found that the primary judge's reasons were indeed inadequate in several respects. While acknowledging the difficulty of the task, the Court held that the primary judge had not sufficiently articulated the basis for excluding certain assets or for the specific notional adjustments made under section 75(2). The Court emphasised the importance of clear and comprehensive reasons in property settlement matters, particularly when allegations of hidden assets or significant disparities in contributions are raised. The lack of detailed reasoning meant that the Court could not be satisfied that the primary judge had properly considered all relevant factors and exercised their discretion appropriately.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Family Court for redetermination.