Woodland & Todd

The appeal concerned a property settlement dispute between a husband and wife, heard by Finn, May, and O’Reilly JJ. The core of the disagreement revolved around the date at which the parties' assets should be valued and the applicable law for division, with the wife contending the trial judge erred in considering these matters as at the date of an antecedent agreement rather than the date of trial.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in considering the parties' assets as at the date of their antecedent agreement instead of the date of trial, and whether the trial judge had applied the incorrect legal framework by referencing the law applicable at the time of the agreement rather than at the time of trial. Furthermore, the court was asked to determine if the trial judge had failed to properly consider the identity, value, and contributions to the property as it existed at the time of trial, and if there was a failure to adequately regard the factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* in relation to the property at the time of trial.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had erred in his approach. The court reasoned that property settlement orders under the *Family Law Act 1975* should generally be determined by reference to the assets and the law as they exist at the time of trial, not at the time of an antecedent agreement, unless specific circumstances warrant otherwise. The trial judge's failure to properly consider the property and relevant statutory factors as they stood at the time of trial constituted a material error.

The appeal was allowed, and both parties were granted a costs certificate for the appeal and the retrial.