Finazzi and Finazzi

In *Finazzi & Finazzi*, the Family Court of Australia considered an objection raised by the wife concerning affidavit evidence filed by the husband. The husband sought to adduce evidence from six witnesses regarding his character and skills, which the wife contended was irrelevant and inadmissible as mere comment. The husband argued that this evidence constituted admissible "lay opinion" under section 78 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the affidavit evidence regarding the husband's personal qualities and skills was relevant to the proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine if such evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue, as required by section 55 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). The husband contended that this evidence was relevant to the issue of "special contribution" to the acquisition, conservation, or improvement of the parties' property.

Justice Murphy found that the evidence was irrelevant. The court reasoned that the facts in issue in family law property proceedings, particularly concerning contributions, relate to the nature, form, and characteristics of the contributions made by each party within the context of their marriage and its specific circumstances. The evidence presented by the husband, which described his personal qualities and skills and compared them to those of other businessmen, did not rationally affect the assessment of his contributions to the marriage or the property. The court emphasised that the focus should be on the contributions made by the parties to each other and to the marriage assets, rather than on the husband's general business acumen or his standing relative to others in the business world, as established in *Mallet v Mallet*.

Consequently, the court ruled that the affidavit evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant. As the evidence failed the threshold test of relevance, it was unnecessary to consider its admissibility under section 78 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). The court directed that a copy of its reasons be expedited and provided to the parties ahead of the adjourned second part of the trial.