Vanderhum & Doriemus

This matter concerned an appeal from a decision of the Family Court of Australia. The parties involved were the father and the mother, and the dispute related to findings of fact made by the trial judge concerning the parties' financial circumstances and the application of provisions within Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The appeal was heard by Coleman, Warnick, and Thackray JJ.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in their findings of fact regarding the parties' financial circumstances, whether the trial judge had misunderstood expert opinion evidence, and whether the trial judge had failed to consider provisions of the amending Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) that were not yet operative at the time of the original hearing. The court also considered the nature of a rehearing by way of appeal to the Full Court, referencing decisions such as *Harris v Caladine*, *CDJ v VAJ*, and *Allesch v Maunz*.

The Full Court rejected the assertion that the trial judge had misunderstood expert evidence, finding that the appellant had not established this ground of appeal. Similarly, the court found no error in the trial judge's findings of fact concerning the parties' financial circumstances. The court also determined that the trial judge had not erred in failing to take into account the yet-to-be-operative provisions of the amending Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), rejecting the contention that the law as contained in Part VII at the time of the appeal hearing should be applied. The court affirmed the principles regarding the nature of appeals as outlined in the cited authorities.

The appeal was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the appeal.