SEMPERTON & SEMPERTON

In the matter of Semperton & Semperton, Judge Howard of the Federal Circuit Court was required to determine the final orders concerning property settlement between the parties. The dispute centred on the division of marital property, and the court's task was to make a just and equitable determination regarding the alteration of the parties' existing legal and equitable interests.

The court was required to consider the principles established by the High Court in *Stanford* regarding the just and equitable exercise of its powers under section 79 of the relevant Act. Specifically, the court had to determine how to identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property, whether it was just and equitable to make a property settlement order having regard to those interests, and how to exercise its broad discretion in accordance with established legal principles rather than by reference to judicial discretion alone or by assuming an entitlement to property division.

Judge Howard's reasoning emphasised that the initial step in any property settlement application is to identify the parties' existing legal and equitable interests in the property according to ordinary common law and equitable principles. The court must then be satisfied that it is just and equitable to make an order altering these interests, a determination that is not to be made by unguided judicial discretion or by assuming a right to property division. The court's power is to be exercised in accordance with legal principles, including those laid down in the Act, and not by conflating the requirements of section 79(2) with the factors listed in section 79(4).

The court ordered that each party was to provide a copy of a proposed Final Order to the other by 4:00 pm on 16 October 2013. The parties were then to attempt to reach an agreed position on the wording of the Final Order, reflecting the court's reasons for judgment, and submit it to the Court by no later than 4:00 pm on 23 October 2013. In the event of an inability to agree, the matter was to be listed for mention, with both parties and their legal representatives to attend personally on a date to be fixed by the Court.