Craig and Rowlands

- **Introduction**
The appeal was brought against final property orders made by Federal Magistrate Purdon-Sully on 22 February 2012, following proceedings between Mr Craig and Ms Rowlands. The husband appeals against the orders he seeks be set aside. The effect of the orders, as described by her Honour, was that the parties’ net asset worth including superannuation and the capitalised value of the husband’s Defence Force Retirement and Deaths Benefits (“DFRDB”) entitlement be divided 40.5 per cent to the wife and 59.5 per cent to the husband.

- **Legal Issues**
The legal issues in the case revolved around the Federal Magistrate's treatment of the husband's DFRDB entitlement as if it were a capital sum capable of actual distribution. The husband also complained that the Federal Magistrate erred in the assessment of the wife’s contribution to the DFRDB entitlement, and that her approach had the effect of double dipping on the DFRDB asset. The husband further argued that the Federal Magistrate erred in the assessment of the wife’s contribution to the parties’ non-DFRDB superannuation assets. The court was required to decide whether the Federal Magistrate had erred in her assessment and treatment of the DFRDB and superannuation assets, and whether these errors were sufficient to warrant allowing the appeal.

- **Court's Reasoning and Outcome**
The court found that the Federal Magistrate had indeed erred in her treatment of the DFRDB. The court held that the Federal Magistrate erred by treating the DFRDB as if it were a capital sum available for distribution between the parties, despite it being received by the husband in a fortnightly sum. The court also found that the Federal Magistrate's approach had the effect of double counting the DFRDB asset by determining the parties’ entitlements to it in one separate pool, and then having regard to it again as a s 75(2) factor in the division of the other pool. Furthermore, the court found that the Federal Magistrate had failed to adequately explain her reasoning process for arriving at the overall property adjustment. The court also found that the Federal Magistrate erred in the assessment of the wife’s contribution to the DFRDB and the parties’ non-DFRDB superannuation assets. The court concluded that these errors warranted allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders made by the Federal Magistrate, except for Orders 1, 2, and 3. The court ordered a rehearing of the application for property settlement by a Federal Magistrate other than Federal Magistrate Purdon-Sully.

- **Final Orders**
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made by Federal Magistrate Purdon-Sully on 22 February 2012, except for Orders 1, 2, and 3. The court ordered a rehearing of the application for property settlement by a Federal Magistrate other than Federal Magistrate Purdon-Sully. The court also granted costs certificates to both parties for the appeal and the rehearing.