Van der Linden & Kordell

In this family law appeal, the parties involved were the husband and the estate of the deceased wife. The dispute arose from the property settlement orders that had previously been made between the parties. The husband had successfully appealed the initial final property settlement orders, leading to a rehearing of the matter. However, the wife had passed away between the original final orders and the determination of the appeal. The proceedings were subsequently conducted between the husband and the wife’s estate.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the contributions made by the husband, both initially and after the wife's death, and whether the trial judge had correctly applied section 75(2) factors in making an adjustment of only 10 per cent in favour of the husband. The court also needed to consider whether the trial judge had correctly accounted for the wife's superannuation entitlements, which had been received by her daughter, under section 75(2)(o). Additionally, the court had to assess whether the trial judge had erred by adopting a global rather than an asset-by-asset approach to the property settlement.

The court found that there was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal. The trial judge had not erred in the assessment of contributions, the adjustment made under section 75(2) factors, or in considering the wife’s superannuation entitlements. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately adopted a global approach to the property settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or, in default of agreement, as assessed.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to this appeal as agreed and in default of agreement as assessed.