Merriman v Merriman

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an appeal by the husband against property settlement, spousal maintenance, and child support orders made by the trial judge. The parties had cohabited from May 1986, married in July 1986, and separated on 17 May 1991. There were two young children of the marriage who resided with the wife. The primary dispute arose from the trial judge's property settlement order, which awarded the wife 25% of the parties' net assets, totalling $1,060,992. This substantial asset pool was largely due to a lottery prize of approximately $1,292,000 won by the husband twelve months after separation. The wife also sought and was awarded spousal maintenance of $400 per week, capitalised over 3.5 years, and a departure from the administrative child support assessment, resulting in an order for the husband to pay $330 per week for child support.

The husband appealed on multiple grounds, arguing that the trial judge failed to follow the proper approach to property settlement proceedings as outlined in established case law, and that the reasons for judgment were insufficient to allow an appellate court to assess the exercise of discretion. He also contended that the trial judge failed to adequately consider relevant factors, including his post-separation contributions, age, health, earning capacity, and the time the children spent with him. Furthermore, the husband submitted that the trial judge erred in relation to the spousal maintenance claim by proceeding on a mistaken concession regarding the wife's inability to support herself and by failing to properly consider the relevant capital sum and threshold test. The child support order was also challenged as excessive and unreasonable.

The Full Court allowed the husband's appeal in part. It found that the trial judge had not provided sufficient reasons for the property settlement order, making it impossible for the appellate court to determine if the decision fell within the proper exercise of discretion under section 79 of the Family Law Act. Consequently, a new trial was ordered for the property settlement. The Court did not consider the grounds relating to the established approach to property settlement proceedings, nor did it determine the spousal maintenance and child support matters, as these would need to be re-determined in light of the further property settlement proceedings. The matter was remitted for re-hearing, and costs certificates were granted to both parties.