Massalski & Riley

In Massalski & Riley, the appellant challenged a property settlement order made by the Family Court of Australia. The appeal centred on the division of property between the parties, specifically regarding the valuation of certain assets and the contributions made by each party to the acquisition and maintenance of those assets. The appellant argued that the primary judge erred in not finding that she had an equitable interest in certain properties, and she sought to introduce further evidence to support her claims. The court was required to decide whether the appeal should be allowed, whether the additional evidence should be admitted, and if the orders made by the primary judge should be upheld.

The Family Court of Australia, in dismissing the appeal, found that the primary judge's assessment of the evidence and the resulting property settlement order were correct. The court emphasised the importance of reliable and verifiable evidence in determining property settlements and noted that the appellant's evidence was often non-responsive, inconsistent, and lacked independent documentation. The court held that the primary judge was justified in finding the appellant and another party's evidence to be unreliable and in preferring the husband's evidence where conflicts arose. The court also found that the proposed additional evidence did not meet the threshold for admission under section 93A(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), as it did not demonstrate that the order under appeal was erroneous.

The court dismissed the appeal and denied the applications to adduce further evidence, except as specified in Order 1. The court ordered that written submissions on the costs of the appeal be provided if a party objected to the costs being determined without a further oral hearing. The form of the order was subject to entry in the court's records.