Destina & Destina

In *Destina & Destina*, heard by Coleman J, the appeal concerned findings made by a Federal Magistrate regarding a disputed debt within family law proceedings. The primary dispute revolved around the Federal Magistrate's determination of the existence and quantum of this debt.

The court was required to determine whether the Federal Magistrate's finding in relation to the disputed debt was unsafe, particularly in light of the evidence relied upon. The appeal also considered whether the Federal Magistrate had exercised their discretion appropriately in weighing the relevant facts and circumstances when determining the parties' entitlements.

Coleman J found that the Federal Magistrate had made an unsafe finding concerning the disputed debt by relying solely on uncorroborated evidence, citing the principle from *Jones v Dunkel*. However, the court was not satisfied that the Federal Magistrate had given undue or insufficient weight to any fact or circumstance in the overall determination of the parties' entitlements, referencing principles from *Gronow v Gronow*, *Norbis v Norbis*, and *AMS & AIF*. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, with the specific order relating to the disputed loan being set aside, while other orders were confirmed. The Appellant Wife was also granted a costs certificate.