Surridge & Surridge
Case
•
[2017] FamCAFC 10
•3 February 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Surridge & Surridge [2017] FamCAFC 10
[2017] FamCAFC 10
3 February 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by the wife, Surridge, against the husband, also Surridge, regarding a property settlement dispute. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the original decision was made by Foster J. The wife sought to appeal the decision on the grounds that the trial judge had made several errors in the assessment of the asset pool and the exercise of the court's discretion under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
The primary issues for the court to decide were whether the trial judge had erred in including certain debts owed by the husband in the asset pool, whether the trial judge had given adequate consideration to the husband's lack of full and frank disclosure, and whether the trial judge had adequately considered the husband's credibility in the assessment of section 79(4)(e) factors. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge should have included the husband's duty pension in the asset pool.
The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in including the husband's debts in the asset pool, as this was not supported by the evidence. The court also found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the husband's lack of full and frank disclosure and had not given sufficient weight to the adverse findings regarding the husband's credibility. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the husband's duty pension in the assessment of section 79(4)(e) factors. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by Foster J on 29 June 2015 were set aside.
The court re-exercised its discretion under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and ordered that a new settlement of property be made in accordance with the reasons for judgment delivered herewith, in a form agreed upon by the parties and filed with the Appeals Registrar within 14 days of the date of these orders. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife's costs of the appeal, to be agreed upon in writing or assessed, and paid within 60 days of the date of agreement or assessment.
The primary issues for the court to decide were whether the trial judge had erred in including certain debts owed by the husband in the asset pool, whether the trial judge had given adequate consideration to the husband's lack of full and frank disclosure, and whether the trial judge had adequately considered the husband's credibility in the assessment of section 79(4)(e) factors. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge should have included the husband's duty pension in the asset pool.
The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in including the husband's debts in the asset pool, as this was not supported by the evidence. The court also found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the husband's lack of full and frank disclosure and had not given sufficient weight to the adverse findings regarding the husband's credibility. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the husband's duty pension in the assessment of section 79(4)(e) factors. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by Foster J on 29 June 2015 were set aside.
The court re-exercised its discretion under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and ordered that a new settlement of property be made in accordance with the reasons for judgment delivered herewith, in a form agreed upon by the parties and filed with the Appeals Registrar within 14 days of the date of these orders. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife's costs of the appeal, to be agreed upon in writing or assessed, and paid within 60 days of the date of agreement or assessment.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Property Settlement
-
Adverse Findings
-
Credibility
-
Judicial Review
-
Re-Exercise or Remittor
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Surridge & Surridge [2017] FamCAFC 10
Most Recent Citation
Chong & Kerimowa [2025] FedCFamC1A 158
Cases Citing This Decision
30
Mantel and Mantel
[2020] FamCA 157
EDWARDS & CANDEE
[2019] FCCA 2886
SCRIVEN & SCRIVEN
[2020] FamCAFC 236
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
2
Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott
[2016] HCA 22
Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott
[2016] HCA 22
Wheeldon & Wheeldon
[2011] FamCA 40