Trevi & Trevi (Re-Exercise)

The case of Trevi & Trevi (Re-Exercise) involved an appeal in family law matters, focusing on the re-exercise of discretion by the court regarding property settlements. The dispute centered on the valuation of a property and the subsequent property settlement between the husband and wife. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision made by the trial judge and deciding on the appropriate orders to be made.

The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the trial judge's application of the s 75(2) factors, which guide the division of property in family law cases. Both parties agreed that the trial judge had erred in her assessment and sought the court's re-exercise of its discretion. The court considered the limitations of the appellate process and the necessity to adhere to the evidence and findings from the trial court. The only new evidence presented was the higher proceeds from the sale of a property compared to the value used by the trial judge.

The court reasoned that while the appellate court has the power to re-exercise its discretion, it must do so within the confines of the appeal process, ensuring it does not obliterate the distinction between original and appellate jurisdiction. The court found the total property pool to be $10.2 million, with the wife having net assets including superannuation of $4.55 million. Given the wife's role as a homemaker and the significant income disparity, the court decided on a ten percent adjustment under the s 75(2) factors. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $1,570,827, later amended to $1,407,431, as the final property settlement.

The court also addressed the wife's request for interest on the cash sum payable. The wife argued for interest based on the interim property settlement agreed upon during the stay of proceedings pending appeal. However, the court found no agreement or relevant order that referred to interest, and thus, the wife's claim for interest was dismissed. The court's final orders included the revised property settlement payment, a request for submissions on the costs of the proceedings, and specific guidelines for any future costs applications.