Pastern & Pastern

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, comprising Finn, Coleman, and May JJ, heard an appeal by the wife against a trial judge's determination regarding the division of assets. The wife contended that the trial judge erred in his discretion by failing to give sufficient weight to her contributions and by making an inadequate adjustment under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* in her favour. She also argued that the trial judge did not provide adequate reasons for his decision and that he accepted and utilised calculations from the husband that were not supported by evidence.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the parties' contributions, both financial and non-financial, and whether the statutory adjustment under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* was inadequate. The court was also required to consider whether the trial judge's reasons for his determination were sufficient and whether he had improperly relied on unevidenced calculations presented by the husband.

The Full Court dismissed the wife's appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Regarding the contributions, the court noted that the wife's assertion that the trial judge failed to give due weight to her contributions was not established. The court followed the principles in *Elsey v Elsey* (1997) FLC 92-727, holding that it was not established that the trial judge erred in determining an inadequate section 75(2) adjustment. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for his determination, citing *Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd* (1987) 10 NSWLR 24 and *Bennett and Bennett* (1991) FLC 92-191. The court also rejected the argument that the trial judge had accepted unevidenced calculations, finding that the wife's own "spreadsheet" was largely unsupported by evidence and that there was no challenge to the schedule of figures provided by the husband's counsel, which formed the basis of the trial judge's findings. The court was satisfied that both parties had made full and frank disclosure.

Consequently, the wife's appeal was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay the husband's costs.