Gibbons & Gibbons

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning property settlement orders made in favour of the husband. The dispute centred on the division of a property pool valued at $1,688,555. The trial judge had initially found contributions to be 55-45 percent in favour of the husband, with a subsequent adjustment of 7.5 percent for section 75(2) factors, resulting in a final division of 52.5 percent to the wife and 47.5 percent to the husband.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the trial judge erred in determining the respective contributions of the parties and in considering the section 75(2) factors. The court was also required to consider whether the trial judge made an error in adding back $14,100 of the wife's savings to the property pool, and whether the trial judge erred by failing to add back $24,000 received by the wife since separation. Finally, the court had to determine if the trial judge erred in specifying a monetary payment to the husband in the final orders that might not align with the determined percentage split of the property pool.

The Full Court found no error in the trial judge's determination of contributions and section 75(2) factors, concluding that these findings were within an acceptable range. However, the court held that the trial judge did err in failing to add back the $24,000 received by the wife since separation to the property pool. Furthermore, the court found an error in the trial judge's approach of determining a percentage split and then allocating a specific monetary sum to the husband, which could potentially deviate from that percentage.

Consequently, the appeal was upheld. The Full Court re-exercised its discretion to determine the property settlement orders.