Johnstone v Johnstone

The case of *Johnstone v Johnstone* concerned a dispute between a husband and wife regarding the division of their matrimonial property. The parties had separated after a lengthy marriage, and the Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate distribution of their assets.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Family Court was whether the trial judge had erred in their assessment of the parties' respective contributions to the marriage and in their consideration of future needs when making the property settlement orders. Specifically, the court had to consider the weight to be given to non-financial contributions, such as homemaking and child-rearing, and how these should be balanced against financial contributions. The court also had to determine if the trial judge had adequately considered the impact of the wife's future earning capacity and her need for financial support.

Gummow and Heydon JJ applied the principles established in *Mallett v Mallett* and *Harris v Harris*, emphasising that property settlement orders must be just and equitable. They reiterated that all contributions, financial and non-financial, are to be assessed equally. The court found that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the wife's significant non-financial contributions and had not adequately considered her future needs, particularly in light of her diminished earning capacity. The Full Court concluded that the original orders were not just and equitable.

Consequently, the Full Court of the Family Court allowed the wife's appeal, set aside the property settlement orders made by the trial judge, and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for redetermination.