DJ AND AJ

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, comprising Bryant CJ, Finn and Coleman JJ, considered an appeal concerning property settlement orders made by a single judge. The dispute involved the division of assets and liabilities between a husband and wife following their separation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the property settlement orders made by the trial judge were just and equitable, particularly in light of the valuation of the husband's superannuation and the wife's income stream. The court also considered the trial judge's decision not to make a superannuation splitting order, despite both parties having sought such an order in relation to the husband's defined benefit interest.

The Full Court noted the trial judge's concern regarding the artificial nature of valuing the husband's superannuation as an income stream while not similarly valuing the wife's current employment income. The court acknowledged that this disparity was a factor to be considered under section 79(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The trial judge reasoned that the proposed orders, which included the transfer of the former matrimonial home to the wife, the retention of certain assets by each party, the allocation of debts, and a payment of $10,000 from the husband to the wife, represented a just and equitable settlement. This division resulted in the wife receiving approximately 82% and the husband 18% of the non-superannuation assets, taking into account the significantly greater value of the husband's superannuation. The court also noted the trial judge's rationale for not making a superannuation splitting order, and that no complaint was made regarding this aspect of the decision on appeal.

The court affirmed the trial judge's orders, finding them to be just and equitable in all the circumstances. The husband was ordered to transfer his interest in the former matrimonial home to the wife, retain his vehicle, boat, and chattels, and be responsible for his car loan and debt to his mother. The wife was to retain her vehicle, be responsible for her car loan and credit card debt, and the husband was to pay her $10,000 by 16 September 2005. The husband was required to vacate the former matrimonial home within sixty days.