RWW and JWW

This matter came before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia on appeal from a decision of a single judge. The appeal concerned the division of property between a husband and wife. The husband sought leave to amend his grounds of appeal, which was granted by the court.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in law in their assessment of contributions, in the exercise of discretion regarding the property settlement, and in their application of section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specific grounds of appeal raised concerns about the weight given to disparities in earning capacity and assets, the duration of the marriage, the husband's expenses and the impact of legal costs, the timing of asset accumulation, the husband's contributions as a parent, the impact of monies expended in relation to the husband's imprisonment, the treatment of funds expended in 1995, the inclusion of liabilities of a family trust, and the weight given to the evidence of the wife's supporting witnesses. The husband also contended that the trial judge erred in failing to adequately consider property interests held in Asia, which impacted the just and equitable nature of the orders made.

The Full Court considered the husband's amended grounds of appeal, which alleged numerous errors by the trial judge. These grounds broadly challenged the trial judge's findings on contributions, the discretionary exercise in determining the percentage entitlements, and the application of section 75(2) adjustments. The husband argued that insufficient weight was given to various factors, including earning capacities, asset disparities, marriage duration, and his contributions as a parent. Furthermore, the appeal raised questions about the accuracy of the trial judge's assessment of the husband's expenses and the consequential impact on his ability to sustain himself without drawing down capital, particularly in light of legal costs. The court also examined the trial judge's treatment of specific financial matters, including the liabilities of a family trust and the alleged use of funds in 1995, as well as the weight afforded to certain witness evidence. A significant point of contention was the trial judge's alleged lack of awareness regarding the extent of the parties' property interests in Asia, which the husband argued prevented a just and equitable determination.