Blake & Blake

This case involved an appeal and cross-appeal concerning property settlement orders made by a Family Court judge. The primary appeal was brought by Blake & Blake, while a cross-appeal was filed by the husband. The dispute centred on the division of assets following a long marriage, with specific issues arising regarding the valuation of a property, the treatment of potential capital gains tax, and the assessment of post-separation contributions.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in their assessment of the parties' contributions, particularly in light of the length of the marriage and the factors outlined in section 79(4) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Further, the appeal raised questions about whether an offer to purchase a property by a sitting tenant should influence its valuation and whether the trial judge had incorrectly treated a prospective capital gains tax liability as a present one. The cross-appeal focused on the husband's post-separation contributions and the assumption of significant liabilities, as contemplated by section 72(2) of the Act.

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, comprising Finn, Coleman, and May JJ, allowed the appeal. The Court reiterated the well-established principles governing appeals from discretionary judgments, emphasising the broad ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible and the caution appellate courts must exercise. The Court found that the trial judge had erred in treating the capital gains tax as a present liability, which had the effect of undervaluing the asset. This error, in the context of the overall assessment, led the Full Court to conclude that the original decision was not just and equitable. The cross-appeal was dismissed, with the Court finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the husband's post-separation contributions and liabilities.