Phung & Phung

The appeal concerned property division orders made by a single judge of the Family Court of Australia. The parties, a husband and wife, disputed the valuation of their property pool and the appropriate adjustment of their respective entitlements. The wife had been awarded 75% of the net property, with the trial judge finding equal contributions to the asset pool but making a significant adjustment in her favour based on section 75(2) factors of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The husband appealed this division, while the wife cross-appealed regarding the valuation of a business.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in several respects. These included the refusal to include two specific debts in the calculation of the net property value, the finding that the husband had failed to provide all relevant documentation when the wife had removed financial records, and whether the substantial section 75(2) adjustment in favour of the wife was warranted given the perceived unsatisfactory evidence of the husband's financial position. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the 25% adjustment was within the proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion, and on cross-appeal, whether the trial judge erred in valuing the husband's business by deducting 100% of its debts while only including 50% of its value.

The Full Court allowed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. It found that the 25% adjustment in favour of the wife was beyond the "generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible," particularly when considering liabilities for which the husband was solely responsible. The court also determined that the full value of the husband's business should have been included as an asset, as 100% of its debts had already been deducted. Consequently, the court re-exercised its discretion on these bases.

The orders of the trial judge were varied to substitute a significantly higher figure for the wife's payment to the husband, reflecting the revised property division. Liberty was granted to the parties to apply for enforcement orders if the wife was unable to make the required payment within 90 days. Both parties were granted costs certificates.