Shriver & Shriver

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an appeal and cross-appeal concerning property settlement orders made by a trial judge. The original appeal was brought by the husband, who asserted that the trial judge had erred in the exercise of discretion. The wife brought a cross-appeal, arguing that the trial judge had made an error in failing to include a partial property settlement as an asset of hers when categorising assets.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in fact or discretion in making the property settlement orders, and specifically, whether the partial property settlement received by the wife had been correctly accounted for as an asset. The husband's appeal contended that the trial judge's discretionary exercise was flawed, while the wife's cross-appeal focused on the specific valuation and inclusion of a particular sum of money.

The Full Court determined that the husband's appeal did not establish any error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, nor did it find any error in fact. However, the Court found merit in the wife's cross-appeal, concluding that the trial judge had erred by failing to include the partial property settlement as an asset of the wife. Consequently, the Court allowed the cross-appeal and varied the property settlement sum awarded to the wife.

The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed. The original property settlement order of $260,543.44 was substituted with a revised sum of $252,653.59. The Court also granted costs certificates to both the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981, deeming it appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise payments in respect of their costs incurred on appeal.