Brice & Brice

The wife appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia against a property division order made by a Federal Magistrate. The Magistrate had ordered a division of the parties' modest asset pool, totalling approximately $120,000 in other assets and $133,000 in superannuation, such that the wife would receive 62.5% and the husband 37.5%. This division required the wife to pay $12,500 to the husband and to allocate $42,000 from her superannuation to him. The parties had been married for 25 years and had three children.

The wife’s appeal focused on three grounds: firstly, that the Federal Magistrate erred by not adding back to the asset pool certain monies expended by the husband post-separation; secondly, that her contributions, assessed by the Magistrate at 57.5%, were undervalued; and thirdly, that the Magistrate should have made a larger adjustment in her favour pursuant to section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to account for relevant factors. The wife sought an 80% share of the asset pool on appeal.

Justice Kay, sitting alone, considered the appropriateness of a four-step process in property adjustment cases. His Honour found no material error of principle or fact in the Federal Magistrate's decision, nor was the outcome plainly unjust. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.