Ruby and Ruby

This case concerned an appeal to the court by the appellant (husband) against orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court concerning property settlement. The dispute originated from earlier orders made by Le Poer Trench J in 2002, which essentially required the appellant to indemnify the respondent (wife) for mortgages over certain properties and appointed the respondent as trustee for their sale. The appellant, who was self-represented, sought to vary these existing orders.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to allow the appellant to adduce further evidence on appeal and whether the appeal itself should be allowed. Central to the appeal was the appellant's application to set aside the 2002 orders pursuant to section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* and to revert the property settlement to its original form as made in 1998. The appellant also sought specific orders regarding payments and costs.

Coleman J allowed the application for leave to adduce further evidence and allowed the appeal. His Honour found that the Federal Magistrate had erred in making the orders under appeal. The court reasoned that the original orders made by Le Poer Trench J were based on a finding that the husband was not to blame for the circumstances surrounding the properties, and that the husband had failed to take action to sell the properties and pay out the mortgage. The court noted the appellant's self-representation and the difficulty in identifying the precise legal basis for his application, but ultimately concluded that the orders made by the Federal Magistrate should be discharged.

Consequently, the court ordered that the application for leave to adduce further evidence be allowed, and that the appeal be allowed. The orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 7 May 2007 were discharged, and the appellant's section 79A application was remitted for rehearing by the Federal Magistrates Court.