Reichstein & Reichstein

This appeal concerned a dispute between a husband and wife regarding the division of their property. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard the appeal from orders made by a single judge. The primary issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in various aspects of their property adjustment, including failing to "add back" certain liabilities of the husband, not including certain assets acquired by the wife after separation, and inadequately explaining the inclusion of proceeds from the sale of shares by the husband post-separation. Further grounds of appeal related to the weight given to the husband's initial contributions, the treatment of an overseas bank account, the consideration of the welfare of the wife's children from a previous marriage, and the failure to account for the husband's post-separation superannuation contributions. The court also considered whether the adjustment made in favour of the wife for section 75(2) factors was outside the reasonable ambit of discretion and whether the overall result was just and equitable.

The Full Court found that the trial judge had made an appealable error in failing to assess and make findings regarding the parties' post-separation superannuation contributions. Additionally, the court determined that the adjustment made in favour of the wife under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) was excessive. While acknowledging the husband's failure to make full and frank disclosure regarding an overseas bank account, the court found no error in the trial judge's treatment of that matter given the state of the evidence. The court also upheld the trial judge's rejection of the husband's submission for weighting regarding a contribution to the welfare of the wife's children.

Allowing the appeal, the Full Court re-exercised the discretion of the court. The overall contributions to superannuation and non-superannuation assets were assessed at 76 per cent for the husband and 24 per cent for the wife, with a minor adjustment to the asset pool. The appropriate adjustment under section 75(2) factors was determined to be 6 per cent in favour of the wife. The court substituted new orders, including specific provisions for the division of the husband's superannuation entitlement and a payment of $313,827.00 to the wife, with provisions for sale of property in the event of default. The parties were granted liberty to file written submissions regarding the costs of the appeal.