Walcott & Walcott (No 2)

In *Walcott & Walcott (No 2)*, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal by the respondent husband against orders made by a single judge concerning the division of property. The primary dispute between the parties, a married couple, revolved around the appropriate valuation and distribution of their various assets and liabilities.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the single judge erred in: (1) failing to make specific findings as to the value of certain assets, particularly the respondent's superannuation interests, and (2) failing to give adequate reasons for the ultimate property settlement orders. The Court also had to consider whether the orders made were just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Wilson J, delivering the judgment of the Full Court, held that the single judge had erred by not making specific findings regarding the value of the respondent's superannuation. The Court reiterated the principle that a proper valuation of assets is a prerequisite for making just and equitable property settlement orders. Furthermore, the Court found that the reasons provided by the single judge were insufficient to enable the parties, or an appellate court, to understand the basis upon which the final orders were made. This lack of clarity meant the Court could not be satisfied that the orders were indeed just and equitable.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, set aside the property settlement orders made by the single judge, and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for redetermination by a different judge.