JAHODA & JAHODA (No.2)

In *Jahoda & Jahoda (No.2)*, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the division of property following a marriage breakdown. The primary dispute revolved around the wife's claim for an adjustment of property interests in her favour, based on allegations of the husband's financial misconduct and dissipation of assets during the marriage.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge erred in failing to make specific findings regarding the husband's alleged dissipation of assets, and consequently, whether the final property settlement was just and equitable. The appeal also questioned the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons in relation to the wife's contributions and the overall assessment of the parties' financial positions.

Burchardt J, delivering the judgment of the Full Court, found that the trial judge had indeed failed to adequately address the wife's allegations of dissipation. The Court held that where such allegations are made, a trial judge must make specific findings of fact concerning the alleged dissipation and its impact on the asset pool. Without these findings, the Court reasoned, it is impossible to determine whether the final property division is just and equitable, as the court's discretion must be exercised with regard to all relevant circumstances, including any deliberate depletion of assets. The Full Court therefore allowed the appeal.