FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Large asset pool – Where trial judge made errors of fact in relation to child support – Whether errors material and whether errors vitiated exercise of discretion by trial Judge in s 75(2) adjustment.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Adequacy of reasons for the assessment of contribution-based entitlements at 75 per cent / 25 per cent in favour of the husband – Where divisible pool included assets of testamentary trusts and trial Judge found no contribution to those assets by the wife – Whether trial Judge obliged to further explain the extent to which this component affected the 25 per cent apportionment to the wife.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Whether errors in trial Judge’s determination of 15 per cent adjustment for s 75(2) factors – Whether error in failure to consider the effect of such adjustment in real money terms – Whether trial Judge’s s 75(2) adjustment went beyond the bounds of reasonable ambit of discretion.
FAMILY LAW – CROSS-APPEAL – Lack of evidentiary basis to deduct fixed amount for realisation costs in determining divisible pool – Orders to effect proportional sharing of capital gains tax or realisation costs.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL – REHEARING – Where Appeal and Cross-Appeal allowed because of trial Judge’s failure to deal on the merits with child support departure proceedings as part of property proceedings – Where disputed issues of fact in those proceedings – other disputed issues of fact necessitating re-hearing.
NOTE: The period for seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court has not expired.