Stinson & Goldsmith (No. 2)

In the matter of *Stinson & Goldsmith (No. 2)*, Carew J of the Family Court of Australia was required to determine property settlement orders between the applicant husband, Mr Stinson, and the respondent wife, Ms Goldsmith. The dispute involved the division of various assets and liabilities, including businesses, properties, and superannuation entitlements, and specifically addressed the wife's claim for a partial property settlement to be reconsidered as an "add back" in the final property settlement.

The court was tasked with determining whether a previously agreed partial property settlement could be revisited and included as an add-back in the final property settlement, and if so, whether there were exceptional reasons to do so. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the myriad of contributions made by each party to the marriage, including post-separation inheritances received by the husband, and assess whether the factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) favoured either party. Ultimately, the court had to determine what constituted a just and equitable distribution of the parties' property.

Carew J reasoned that a partial property settlement could indeed be reconsidered at a final hearing, but found no exceptional reason to include such settlements as an add-back in the final property settlement. The court acknowledged the significant contributions of both parties throughout the marriage and post-separation. Applying the principles from *Bonnici & Bonnici*, the court considered the husband's inheritances, noting that while inheritances are not a protected category, they are generally treated as an entitlement of the recipient party unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this instance, the court found that the contributions of both parties were to be regarded as equal, and that the section 75(2) factors did not favour either party.

Consequently, the court ordered a property distribution of 57.5% in favour of the husband and 42.5% in favour of the wife, deeming this to be a just and equitable outcome. The husband was to retain joint property and property in his name, while the wife was to retain property in her name and receive a cash payout. The detailed orders specified the division of numerous assets and liabilities, including businesses, properties, and bank accounts, and provided for the refinancing of certain mortgages and the discharge of others.