Pittman & Pittman

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Pittman & Pittman involved an appeal against a property settlement order. The husband contested the decision of the primary judge to exclude his interest in a family trust from the property pool. The wife, in turn, filed a cross-appeal challenging the assessment of her contributions and the adjustment made under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in excluding the husband's interest in the family trust from the property pool, and if so, whether the trial judge's assessment of contributions and the section 75(2) adjustment should be recalculated based on the correct property pool.

The Court found that the trial judge had erred in excluding the husband’s interest in the family trust from the property pool. The husband had an irrevocable entitlement to both the income of the trust and to a share in the capital distribution on the vesting date, making his interest in the trust property that was capable of division. Consequently, the property pool should have included the husband’s interest in the family trust. The Court also found that the trial judge's assessment of contributions and the section 75(2) adjustment was based on an erroneous property pool. It was not just and equitable to apply these assessments to the enlarged property pool without a recalculation.

The appeal was allowed, and the cross-appeal was also allowed in part. The orders made by the primary judge were set aside, and the matter was remitted for rehearing by another judge. The parties were granted liberty to file written submissions regarding the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, with a specific timeline provided for the submission and response process. The Court emphasised the necessity for a rehearing to ensure that the correct property pool was used in the calculations of contributions and section 75(2) adjustments.