Blandford & Esmore

The appellant, Ms Blandford, appeals against the property settlement orders made by the primary judge in a family law matter, which divided the parties' property and superannuation at a ratio of 70 per cent to Ms Blandford and 30 per cent to Mr Esmore. The appeal raises two issues: whether the primary judge provided adequate reasons for the percentage outcome reached and whether the outcome was unreasonable or plainly unjust. Ms Blandford also argued that the primary judge erred in assessing the contributions of the parties, but this ground was not pursued in the appeal.

The primary judge found that both parties made significant contributions to the relationship, but the appellant's contributions were over double those of the respondent. The primary judge assessed the contributions of the parties and considered various factors, such as the length of the relationship, the financial and non-financial contributions of the parties, and the impact of the appellant's mental health issues on the relationship. The primary judge concluded that the outcome reached was fair and reasonable, taking into account all of the matters identified and discussed.

The court considered the arguments of counsel for the appellant and found that the primary judge had provided adequate reasons for the percentage outcome reached. The court was not persuaded that the outcome was unreasonable or plainly unjust, given the significant differences between the contributions of the parties. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.