Saville & Saville

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning property settlement orders made in a marriage of 14 years. The wife sought an adjustment to the property settlement, arguing that the trial judge’s consideration of section 75(2) factors of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) was inadequate. The dispute centred on the wife's claim that the disparity in earning capacities between the parties and her ongoing responsibilities for the children warranted a greater adjustment than the 2% awarded by the trial judge, which resulted in her receiving 57% of the $2.4 million asset pool.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in their assessment of the section 75(2) factors and, consequently, whether the property settlement order fell outside the generous ambit of the court's discretion. The court was required to consider the wife's virtually non-existent future earning capacity compared to the husband's substantial and increasing income, her principal responsibility for the children's support, the husband's ongoing child support obligations, and the differing inheritance prospects of each party. Additionally, the court had to weigh the significant legal costs each party faced and the inadequacy of the remaining capital to meet their future needs.

The Full Court reasoned that while a consideration of the various section 75(2) factors, including the disparity in earning capacities, the wife's role as primary caregiver, and future financial needs, might have led to a different outcome, the trial judge's adjustment did not exceed the broad discretion afforded to them. The court noted that the wife's contribution-based entitlement exceeded the husband's, and that the husband was likely to receive a larger inheritance. The court also highlighted that the husband's superannuation was not immediately accessible. Ultimately, the Full Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion. The court also issued a cautionary note regarding the preparation of appeal books, observing that only a small portion of the material was referred to in argument.