Zader v Zader

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. The Full Court had previously upheld a judgment of Mr Justice Dovey, who had made orders regarding a property application between the parties pursuant to section 79 of the *Family Law Act*. The marriage had lasted seven years, with a period of cohabitation of twelve years, and there were two children of the marriage. The primary asset was the former matrimonial home, with an equity of $60,000.

The applicant sought special leave to appeal on the grounds that the Full Court erred in upholding the trial judge's decision. Specifically, the applicant contended that the trial judge failed to specifically consider the contributions of the husband to the marriage, as required by section 79(4) of the *Family Law Act*. The applicant argued that the judgment did not demonstrate that the husband's contributions had been taken into account, and that the Full Court's inference that the trial judge had considered these contributions based on a single phrase was insufficient.

The applicant relied on established case law, including *Mallett v Mallett*, *Norris*, *Lee Steere v Lee Steere*, and *Pastrikos v Pastrikos*, to assert that a trial judge is legally obligated to undertake the exercise of considering all factors listed in section 79(4). While the weight given to each factor is a matter for the judge, the applicant submitted that a failure to demonstrate that this consideration occurred constitutes a legal error. The applicant's primary concern was that the Full Court's affirmation of the trial judge's judgment sanctioned this alleged legal error.