LW v GAB

LW and GAB were parties in a de facto relationship that ended in separation. The dispute centred on the adjustment of their property interests, with the primary concern being the reliability of the appellant's evidence and the composition of the asset pool. The matter was brought before the Family Court of Australia, where the trial judge assessed the evidence presented and made findings that were not entirely favourable to the appellant. The appellant contested the judge's findings, arguing that certain items should not have been included in the asset pool and that the 70/30 apportionment in favour of the appellant was overly generous to the respondent.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant's evidence unreliable and whether the inclusion of certain items in the asset pool was justified. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the 70/30 apportionment was appropriate, considering the appellant's argument that it was overly generous to the respondent. The court examined the evidence and the trial judge's reasoning, concluding that the trial judge's findings were well-supported and that the asset pool and apportionment were correctly determined. The court held that the appellant's evidence was unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of credibility, and that the items included in the asset pool were properly considered. Furthermore, the court found that the 70/30 apportionment was reasonable, taking into account the trial judge's assessment of the parties' contributions and needs.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis. The court found that the trial judge's decision was sound and that the appeal did not present any grounds for overturning the original judgment. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and a careful consideration of the legal principles applicable to the case. The final orders reflect the court's determination that the appeal was without merit and that the respondent was entitled to the costs awarded.