SB & BE

The case of *SB & BE* concerned an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Family Court of Australia. The applicants, SB and BE, sought to challenge orders made by a judge of the Family Court concerning property settlement. The primary dispute revolved around the division of assets and liabilities between the parties following the breakdown of their marriage.

The central legal issues before Kay J were whether the primary judge erred in their assessment of the parties' contributions, both financial and non-financial, to the marriage and the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of the matrimonial property. Further, the court was required to consider whether the primary judge had adequately taken into account the relevant future needs of each party when making the property adjustment orders, and whether the overall division of property was just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Kay J considered the principles established in *Mallett v Mallett* and *Harris v Harris*, which guide the court's approach to property settlement. The judge analysed the evidence presented at the original hearing, focusing on the parties' respective contributions and their future economic circumstances. The reasoning involved a careful re-evaluation of the primary judge's findings of fact and the application of the relevant legislative provisions under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The judge ultimately found that the primary judge had not made any errors of law or fact that would warrant intervention on appeal.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.