Caruso and Colombo

This case concerned an application by the wife to review orders made by a Judicial Registrar concerning property settlement. The husband had initially sought declaratory relief regarding his interest in a jointly owned home. The Judicial Registrar had granted the wife leave to institute proceedings for property settlement under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and made consequential property orders, including an order for the wife to pay the husband $255,000 for his interest in the matrimonial home within 90 days, failing which the home was to be sold. The wife sought to review these orders, primarily challenging the property settlement outcome. The husband did not seek to disturb the Judicial Registrar's orders but acknowledged an error in the agreed valuation of the home, which would have resulted in a slightly higher payment to the wife.

The court was required to determine whether the property orders made by the Judicial Registrar were just and equitable in all the circumstances, and to consider the appropriate approach to assessing the parties' contributions to their property. The legal issues involved the application of s 78 and s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the process for ascertaining property, evaluating contributions, and making adjustments under s 75(2). The court also had to consider the wife's application for review and the husband's contingent application to review the grant of leave to institute property proceedings.

Justice Moore found that the Judicial Registrar's approach to assessing contributions on a global basis was not ideal in this case, and that it was more appropriate to consider contributions to the matrimonial home separately from other assets. The court determined that the parties had made equal contributions to the matrimonial home, and that neither had contributed to the other's other assets, meaning each would retain their separate property. After considering s 75(2) factors, particularly the disparity in assets and the husband's rent-free accommodation, the court concluded that an adjustment in the wife's favour was appropriate, bringing the total adjustment to $45,000, which was close to the amount ordered by the Judicial Registrar. The court found the Judicial Registrar's overall outcome to be just and equitable.

The wife's application to review the orders was dismissed, save for an amendment to the timeframe for her to purchase the husband's interest in the home. The 90-day period was extended to six weeks from the date of the current orders to allow the wife to arrange payment. If she failed to do so, the property would be sold, and the net proceeds divided equally after costs, with an additional $45,000 to the wife and the balance to the husband. The husband's contingent application to review the grant of leave was rendered unnecessary.