GWH & PGH

The Family Court of Australia heard an appeal by the husband concerning property adjustment orders made under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The trial judge had ordered a division of the parties' assets, totalling $1,638,818.93, with 55 per cent allocated to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife. The husband's appeal primarily argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider his pre-marriage contributions, particularly the value of a commercial property, and that the s 75(2) adjustment in favour of the wife was excessive.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge erred by not adopting an asset-by-asset approach to assessing contributions, as opposed to a global approach, and whether the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the husband's initial contributions. Additionally, the court considered whether the 15 per cent adjustment made under s 75(2) of the Act, favouring the wife, fell outside the reasonable ambit of the trial judge's discretion, particularly in light of the parties' earning capacities and financial positions.

The Full Court held that it was open to the trial judge to adopt a global approach to assessing contributions, referencing *Norbis v Norbis* (1986) 161 CLR 513. The court found that the trial judge's assessment of contributions, which resulted in a 70 per cent entitlement for the husband and 30 per cent for the wife, was within the reasonable range of discretion, considering the numerous contributions made by both parties over their nearly 19 years of cohabitation and marriage. Similarly, the s 75(2) adjustment was deemed to be within the reasonable ambit of the trial judge's discretion, taking into account the parties' similar earning capacities, the disparity in their financial positions favouring the husband, and the wife's role in caring for the children.

The appeal was dismissed, and the costs order made in favour of the wife at trial was affirmed.