M & M

The parties in this matter were M (the applicant) and M (the respondent). The dispute concerned an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Family Court of Australia. The application was heard by Finn, Warnick, and Le Poer Trench JJ of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had failed to establish a case for the variation of a final property settlement order made in 2018. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the primary judge had correctly applied the principles relating to the alteration of final property orders, particularly in circumstances where the applicant alleged a significant non-disclosure of assets by the respondent at the time of the original orders.

The Full Court's reasoning focused on the stringent requirements for setting aside or varying final property orders under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Their Honours affirmed that such applications require proof of fraud, duress, undue influence, or other vitiating factors, or a significant unforeseen change in circumstances. In this instance, the Full Court found that the primary judge had correctly assessed the evidence presented by the applicant and concluded that the alleged non-disclosure did not meet the threshold for varying the final orders, as the applicant had not demonstrated that the respondent's conduct amounted to fraud or that there had been a significant unforeseen change in circumstances warranting such a variation.

The Full Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.