Donney v Worth

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Stuart Royal Donney, by his next friend Doris May Donney, sought to challenge a decision of the Full Court. The dispute revolved around the apportionment of property interests between the applicant and the respondent, Mrs Worth, following their separation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Court had erred in its assessment of the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Full Court had correctly identified that the trial judge's apportionment was "manifestly unjust" or "plainly wrong" according to the principles established in *House v R*. The applicant contended that the Full Court's own substituted apportionment was also flawed, as it did not identify any specific error in the trial judge's findings of fact or the weight given to particular contributions.

The Full Court had allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's apportionment of a half-interest to the respondent for a sum of $10,000 was manifestly unjust. The Full Court substituted its own apportionment, stating that the trial judge had erred in the exercise of discretion. The applicant's argument before the High Court was that the Full Court's judgment lacked a clear basis for its intervention, as it did not point to any specific factual finding being wrong, any relevant factor being ignored, or any irrelevant factor being considered. The applicant highlighted that the trial judge's decision was based on an overall assessment of capital and indirect contributions, with income contributions being approximately equal.