Johnson v Johnson

This matter concerned an appeal and cross-appeal from decisions of a judge of the Family Court of Australia. The primary dispute involved the division of property following the breakdown of a marriage, with particular focus on the valuation and inclusion of company shares and overseas assets within the marital pool. A further issue raised was whether the trial judge demonstrated bias.

The Full Court of the Family Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in their findings regarding the value of property, specifically company shares and overseas assets, and whether these assets were held beneficially for one of the parties. The court also had to consider whether the judge’s conduct gave rise to an apprehension of bias, and if so, whether this warranted disqualification. Finally, the court was tasked with determining the parties' liability for tax losses and penalties.

The court addressed the alleged bias by examining the context of the judge's statement that they would look principally to evidence other than that of the parties. The Full Court concluded that, when viewed in its proper context, the statement did not demonstrate bias. Regarding the property adjustment, the court applied the principles established in *Warren v Coombes* to re-exercise the discretion where findings were made on insufficient evidence. The court found that certain overseas assets had been incorrectly included in the property pool and that the valuation of company shares required adjustment.

The appeal was allowed in part, leading to a variation of the property adjustment orders to reflect a reduced sum for the appellant. The cross-appeal was dismissed. The court also varied orders concerning the inclusion of penalties in the adjustment of property and reserved the question of costs.