Maine & Maine

This appeal concerns an appeal against property settlement orders made by Judge Vasta 11 years after the parties finally separated. The Court of Appeal was required to consider the appeal on its merits, including whether the trial judge had made an error in assessing the financial contributions of the parties during the marriage and post-separation period. The Court was also required to consider whether the trial judge had conflated the statutory criteria for making an order under s 79(2) with the criteria for making an order under s 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed conflated the statutory criteria for making an order under s 79(2) with the criteria for making an order under s 79(4) and that the trial judge had failed to consider the parties’ contributions during the 11-year post-separation period. The Court found that the trial judge had also erred in his Honour’s assessment of the direct and indirect financial contributions of the parties. The Court further found that the trial judge had failed to make findings in respect of evidence that addressed specifically the impact that the violence in the relationship had upon the wife’s contributions.

The Court found that these errors amounted to an appealable error. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders made by Judge Vasta, and remitted the matter to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing by a different judge. The Court further found that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) to each party in respect of such part as the Attorney-General considers appropriate of any costs incurred by each party in relation to the rehearing. The Court did not make any orders as to the costs of the appeal.