F v F

This matter concerned an appeal from a decision of a trial judge regarding property settlement. The appeal was heard by Ellis, Baker and Warnick JJ.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in their approach to the property settlement, specifically concerning the categorisation of a lump sum payment and the assessment of spousal maintenance, and whether these errors constituted a miscarriage of justice under s 79A(1)(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), thereby justifying a re-exercise of discretion.

The Full Court held that the trial judge's approach was not open to them and warranted intervention. Their Honours found that the trial judge should have identified and valued the parties' property at the date of the hearing, assessed contributions, considered the s 75(2) factors, and taken into account s 79(4)(d), (f), and (g) of the *Family Law Act*. Furthermore, the Court determined that it was beyond the trial judge's power to categorise a lump sum payment as an order for maintenance. The Court adopted the observations in *Clauson and Clauson* regarding the distinction between the s 75(2) component of a s 79 order and a claim for maintenance, and the necessary steps before making an order for lump sum maintenance.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the application and cross-application were remitted for rehearing.