Costello & Langdon

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Ms. Costello appealed against the property settlement orders made in her de facto relationship with Mr. Langdon. The primary judge had ordered a division of property which Ms. Costello found to be unjust and inequitable, drawing an analogy to the case of Stanford v Stanford. The appeal hinged on whether the primary judge correctly applied the relevant sections of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in determining the just and equitable division of property. Specifically, the appeal questioned whether the primary judge conflated considerations under s 90SM(4) and s 90SM(3) of the Act and whether the court erred in assessing the unmet needs of the parties.

The court examined the primary judge’s reasoning and found that while there were similarities to Stanford v Stanford, the facts of the case at hand were distinct. The court emphasised that considerations under s 90SM(4) could indeed be taken into account when determining if it was just and equitable to make orders for property division. The court also considered whether the primary judge had erred in assessing the unmet needs of the parties, but concluded that any such error did not impact the outcome of the case. The orders were based on the contributions of both parties, and the court found that the primary judge’s assessment was sound. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $14,707 within 28 days. The decision underscores the importance of correctly applying statutory provisions in property settlement proceedings and highlights the court's role in ensuring that property division is just and equitable, taking into account all relevant factors.