Wilde & Wilde

The case of Wilde & Wilde involved an appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia concerning property settlement orders made after a third trial. The primary dispute revolved around the husband's alleged failure to make full and frank financial disclosure, the treatment of various asset "add backs" and expenditures, the valuation of the husband's veterinary practice, the assessment of contributions, and the application of section 75(2) factors. The husband also sought to extend time to cross-appeal certain orders.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in exercising discretion regarding the husband's disclosure, specifically concerning payments to his daughter and losses from derivatives trading. Further issues included whether the trial judge erred in failing to "add back" notional assets or in adding back the wife's post-separation expenditure, and the correct treatment of the husband's legal fees, business drawings, payments to his brother, derivatives trading losses, and payments to his daughter. The valuation of the husband's veterinary practice, the overall assessment of contributions, and the application of section 75(2) factors were also central to the appeal. Finally, the court considered the husband's application to extend time to appeal, including whether the trial judge erred in applying the slip rule.

The court found no appealable error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion regarding the husband's disclosure, noting that credit findings were made in favour of the husband. Regarding "add backs," the court observed that legal fees were accounted for elsewhere, payments to the husband's brother were from an inheritance, and the wife's post-separation expenditure was considered in the context of section 75(2) adjustments. The valuation of the veterinary practice was deemed to have applied recognised principles, with the trial judge making findings of lack of objectivity regarding the wife's expert. The assessment of contributions was found to be available on the evidence, and the section 75(2) adjustment was made without error, particularly as there was no expert evidence to establish the wife's employment capacity. The husband's application to extend time to cross-appeal was dismissed, as the proposed grounds did not demonstrate a likely prospect of success, including the assertion of a "double count" of legal fees.

The Full Court dismissed the husband's application for an extension of time to appeal. The court found no error in the trial judge's application of the slip rule, nor did it find any basis for estoppel against the wife. Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.