Singerson & Joans

In the case of Singerson & Joans, the appellant and cross-appellant brought their respective appeals against the same orders of the Family Court of Australia. The central issue in both appeals was the treatment of the husband’s inheritance by the trial judge. The appellant and cross-appellant contended that the trial judge erred in the assessment of contributions and in the application of section 75(2) matters concerning the husband's inheritance. They argued that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the contributions and did not correctly identify the relevant period for assessing those contributions, which was the four years between separation and the trial.

The Full Court of the Family Court considered these appeals and found that the trial judge erred in both the assessment of contributions and the identification of the relevant period. The Full Court held that a global approach was appropriate and assessed the parties' contributions to their property to the date of trial, finding a 52.5 percent contribution in favour of the husband. Despite the parties arguing that section 75(2) matters should be considered, the Full Court determined that no further adjustment was necessary. The Full Court allowed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, setting aside certain orders made by the trial judge and substituting new orders regarding the division of property.

In addition to the property division, the Full Court ordered the husband to file written submissions regarding any potential adjustment to the wife's superannuation account, with a corresponding response from the wife. The Full Court also made orders concerning the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, granting each party a costs certificate under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981. These orders reflect the Full Court's determination that the trial judge's approach to the husband's inheritance and contributions was flawed and that a re-exercise of the Court's discretion was warranted.