Property Settlement Appeal After Procedural Misstep and Deficient Reasons: When Can an Appellate Court Set Aside Orders for “Add-Back” Confusion, Unresolved Valuations, and Premature Costs Reliance?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Babington & Livesey [2023] FedCFamC1A 139, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1 (Appellate Jurisdiction)

Presiding Judge: Tree J

Cause of Action: Family Law appeal concerning final property settlement orders and a costs order

Judgment Date: 21 August 2023

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Property settlement appeal

Keyword 3: Adequacy of reasons

Keyword 4: Add-backs and notional assets

Keyword 5: Procedural fairness and costs

Keyword 6: Remitter for rehearing

Background

A long relationship ended, and the parties’ property dispute was required to be resolved under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The parties shared care of two children on an equal time arrangement. Apart from superannuation, the main practical asset was the former matrimonial home, with competing contentions about bank accounts, liabilities, and multiple claimed “add-backs”. The first-instance Court purported to make orders producing an equal division, but the route taken to reach that result became the real problem: key valuation disputes were left undecided, reasons were unclear, and the final orders treated notional add-backs as if they were cash repayments. The dispute reached the appellate Court not as a re-run of the marriage, but as a strict question of whether the first-instance exercise of discretion was legally sound and explained in a way that permitted meaningful review.

Core Disputes and Claims

Core legal focus: Whether the first-instance property settlement and costs orders could stand when the Court did not determine essential valuation disputes, did not expose a coherent balance sheet outcome, converted notional add-backs into real payments without reasons, and dealt with costs in a way that undermined procedural fairness.

Relief sought by the Appellant: Orders allowing the appeal, setting aside the property settlement orders and the costs order, and remitting the matter for rehearing.

Relief sought by the Respondent: Dismissal of the appeals and preservation of the first-instance orders.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began in 2002, formalised by marriage in 2008, and ended by separation in 2019 after about 17 years. The children’s care arrangements were settled by consent at the trial, leaving the financial dispute to be determined by the Court.

In everyday terms, the parties’ financial life revolved around one central asset: the former matrimonial home. Although held in the Appellant’s sole name, it was largely funded by joint borrowings. Like many property cases, the hard part was not identifying that there was a house and superannuation, but determining what else existed, what it was worth, what debts were real, and what alleged financial behaviour should be treated as affecting the ultimate division.

As the matter progressed, the dispute became more granular. Each party asserted different values for cars, bank accounts, credit cards, tax debt, rates, parent loans, and superannuation, and each also alleged that the other had spent or withheld money in a way that should be “added back” as a notional asset. This is where litigation often turns: the parties stop arguing about general fairness and start fighting about the authenticity of numbers, the reliability of disclosure, and whether alleged spending was legitimate living expense or strategic depletion.

The decisive moment came not only from contested figures, but from how the first-instance Court attempted to finalise the matter. The primary judge accepted an equal contribution assessment and made no adjustment for future needs, then directed that orders be re-drafted. The final orders that emerged did not merely distribute property; they effectively compelled payments to “equalise” add-backs and also deducted costs from one party’s share, without a clear explanation of the pathway from evidence to outcome.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Appellant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Competing balance sheet contentions: The Appellant advanced valuations for the home, bank accounts, and liabilities, disputing a range of figures proposed by the Respondent.

2. “Add-back” case against the Respondent: The Appellant contended several amounts should be treated as notional property of the Respondent, reflecting claimed post-separation expenditure or other financial conduct.

3. Concerns about incomplete disclosure: A practical theme was the Appellant’s position that she was being penalised through add-backs while the Respondent’s financial position and resources were not fully or accurately brought to account.

4. Costs position (procedural posture): The Appellant’s written submissions signalled that costs should be dealt with after substantive judgment and foreshadowed reliance on settlement offers if and when the Court requested them.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. His own balance sheet figures: The Respondent pressed valuations of vehicles, bank accounts, debts, and superannuation, disputing the Appellant’s lower valuations on a number of items.

2. “Add-back” case against the Appellant: The Respondent asserted multiple claimed add-backs, including withdrawals from accounts and superannuation, aiming to treat those amounts as notional property still effectively “held” by the Appellant.

3. Costs submissions: The Respondent sought costs and referred to a settlement offer in a way that, viewed later by the appellate Court, created a serious procedural concern because it put “without prejudice save as to costs” material before the primary judge at a time when costs were being argued within the same set of reasons as the substantive property decision.

Core Dispute Points

1. What was the correct property pool, in real numbers, after resolving disputes about asset and debt values?

2. How should alleged “add-backs” operate: as notional adjustments within the property pool, or as real money repayments?

3. Could an equal division be rationally asserted without the Court identifying the pool and the outcome each party would actually receive?

4. Was it procedurally fair for costs to be dealt with in the same reasons as the substantive property decision when settlement offers were improperly revealed?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits in property cases are not just narratives. They are a structured attempt to turn lived experience into admissible proof that can support a discretionary order. In this matter, each side’s affidavit material functioned in predictable but strategically significant ways:

1. Framing the other party’s conduct: One party’s withdrawals became “dissipation” in the other party’s telling. Ordinary living expenses became “waste” when the litigation lens tightened.

2. Turning uncertainty into arithmetic: Affidavits often contain the subtle move from “I believe there was money” to “the Court should add back $X”. The Court’s task is to decide what is actually proven, not what is feared.

3. Competing expressions of the same facts: A withdrawal can be described as “taking joint savings” or “meeting urgent expenses when the relationship collapsed”. The credibility contest often hides in those word choices.

Strategic intent behind procedural directions regarding affidavits: The Court’s usual purpose is to force clarity early, narrow disputes, and ensure that each party knows precisely what case must be met. Where parties are self-represented or where disclosure is contested, directions are supposed to prevent ambush. In this case, the later appellate criticism shows that even if affidavits and submissions are filed, the process fails if the judgment does not resolve disputes that are necessary to calculate the pool and the ultimate outcome.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing and final orders, the matter involved several procedural steps common to family law property litigation:

1. Timetabling orders for evidence and submissions, including written submissions after the evidence concluded.

2. Orders resolving parenting by consent, leaving property to be determined by reserved judgment.

3. Later procedural skirmishes concerning post-trial applications about health-related developments and attempts to obtain further information, which were addressed immediately prior to delivery of judgment and then treated as irrelevant to the reserved property decision.

4. After judgment, orders were made in chambers finalising the property settlement terms, including sale and distribution mechanics, and a direction that costs be paid from one party’s share.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The appellate Court’s reasons reveal a critical truth about litigation reality: a hearing does not end when evidence closes. A case can still miscarry in submissions and in the structure of reasons, especially where costs, offers, and discretionary reasoning collide.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The first-instance process proceeded to a four-day hearing. Parenting settled by consent. Property was reserved for decision, with written submissions exchanged.

The turning point came during submissions about costs. “Without prejudice save as to costs” communications are protected to keep settlement negotiations frank. The normal practice is that the trial judge determines liability and property first, then hears costs. The difficulty here was that costs were argued prematurely, and settlement offer material was placed before the primary judge before the substantive decision was delivered in the same reasons.

The appellate judge later identified that the mere presence of such material in the primary judge’s consideration created an irremediable problem. Even though this point was not advanced as a formal ground of appeal, it illustrated a deeper structural issue: the process must not only be fair, it must appear fair.

Core Evidence Confrontation

In property cases, “decisive evidence” is often mundane: bank statements, account balances, car valuations, and debt statements. The decisive confrontation here was not one witness collapsing under cross-examination; it was the Court’s failure to do the essential work of determining disputed values and then transparently showing how the pool and orders achieved a just and equitable division.

The appellate reasons list a large set of balance sheet items that were left undecided. That omission was not a minor technicality. Without resolving those disputes, there is no stable foundation from which to apply the s 79 process. The case demonstrates that discretion is not freedom from arithmetic; discretion is structured choice built on findings.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The appellate judge applied orthodox appellate principles for discretionary decisions, including the need to show error of the kind identified in House v The King.

“It is simply not possible to adequately discern the reasoning behind what the primary judge did … The utterance of a ritual incantation that the result is ‘just and equitable’ is an inadequate exposure of reasoning in this case.” :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

This passage was determinative because it captures the appellate Court’s core criticism: the first-instance reasons did not reveal how the orders were calculated, what disputes were resolved, or how the actual outcome could be understood as just. A party cannot meaningfully accept or appeal an outcome that has not been articulated in concrete terms. More importantly, an appellate court cannot review the exercise of discretion if it cannot reconstruct the path of reasoning.

The appellate Court also identified that the final orders converted add-backs into cash payments without any reasons explaining why notional adjustments became real money transfers. That shift matters because add-backs typically operate as a balancing device within the pool, not as an enforceable debt repayment mechanism unless the Court explains why justice requires that conversion.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The appellate Court allowed both appeals, set aside the first-instance costs order and property settlement orders, and remitted the property settlement dispute for rehearing before a different judge.

The Court also made orders about receiving limited further evidence on appeal and set a timetable for costs submissions following the appeal outcome.

A suppression order was made to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, restricting publication of the appellate reasons to parties and lawyers until a later point connected to the rehearing and any further appeal. An addendum later noted that the parties agreed to publication of the reasons to the judge undertaking the rehearing, and the suppression order was discharged.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

This chapter adopts a disciplined structure: Special Analysis → Judgment Points → Legal Basis → Evidence Chain → Judicial Original Quotation → Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure.

Special Analysis

This appeal is a practical lesson in the difference between aiming for equality and proving equality.

At first instance, an equal division was said to be intended. Yet the appellate reasons expose how equality can become an illusion if:

1. The pool is not actually determined.

2. disputed values are left unresolved.

3. the final orders do not articulate the real-world outcome each party will receive.

4. notional add-backs are converted into real payments without reasons.

5. costs are dealt with in a way that intrudes on the substantive decision-making process.

The jurisprudential value is not in any new statute being created, but in the Court’s sharp insistence on the minimum reasoning and fact-finding required for a valid s 79 exercise, and on the procedural boundaries that protect settlement negotiation privilege and costs fairness.

Judgment Points

1. Adequate reasons are not optional; they are the mechanism of appellate accountability.

The appellate Court reaffirmed that reasons must expose the pathway from evidence and statutory framework to outcome. It is not enough to announce “just and equitable”. In property cases, the Court must show the balance sheet, findings on disputes, the percentage division, and the practical effect of orders.

Self-agency lesson: If you are a party, treat the “reasons problem” as a strategic objective. Force the issues into a form the Court must answer: What is the pool? What is disputed? What is the finding? What is the outcome?

1. A property pool cannot be divided if it has not been found.

The appellate Court identified numerous disputed balance sheet items that were never determined. That omission removed “the necessary and fundamental foundation” for division. In practice, this means: no pool, no valid discretion.

Self-agency lesson: Do not let your case drift into generalised fairness arguments. Build a schedule of disputed values with supporting proof. Invite explicit findings on each disputed item.

1. Add-backs are usually not debts. Converting them into payments requires reasons.

The first-instance orders effectively required the Appellant to pay the Respondent cash sums to “equalise” add-backs from sale proceeds. The appellate Court described this as unsupported by reasons and “bizarre” in effect, especially given the limited equity available.

Self-agency lesson: If the other party seeks add-backs, insist on clarity: Are they seeking notional adjustment, or a repayment order? If the latter, demand a principled explanation tied to evidence and statutory purpose.

1. Outcome articulation matters because justice is assessed in real-world effect, not labels.

The appellate Court highlighted the absence of any articulated conclusion about what each party would actually end up with. The Court did the exercise itself on the most favourable figures to the Respondent to show the likely practical injustice: the party with the home sale might be left with little actual asset value because add-backs consumed the entitlement.

Self-agency lesson: Always translate proposed orders into a bottom-line outcome. Ask: “After sale, after debt, after adjustments, what do I actually receive, in cash and in liabilities?”

1. Procedural fairness in costs is not a technicality; it protects the integrity of outcomes.

The costs process failed because costs were dealt with in a way that prevented a proper, post-judgment contest, and because settlement offer material was brought forward prematurely. Even where the appellate Court did not formally decide the appeal on miscarriage grounds, it explained why the process was deeply flawed.

Self-agency lesson: If costs are being argued before the substantive decision, be alert. Insist on orthodox sequencing or clear directions. Do not allow settlement offer privilege to be eroded by tactical filing.

1. Appeals from discretion require identifying structured error, but inadequate reasons can itself be the error.

The appellate Court applied House v The King principles. It also relied on the test for adequacy of reasons: whether an appeal court can ascertain reasoning and whether justice is seen to be done. Inadequate reasons deny both review and legitimacy.

Self-agency lesson: When appealing, do not merely complain that the result is unfair. Identify the structural failings that make the discretion legally unsafe: missing findings, missing pool, unexplained conversion of concepts, and meaningless orders.

1. Remitter is not just a redo; it is a reset of the evidentiary and reasoning discipline.

Because major facts were unresolved and because post-trial events occurred, the appellate Court remitted for rehearing before a different judge. This underscores that a rehearing is a new opportunity and a new risk: parties must return with better schedules, cleaner evidence chains, and more disciplined submissions.

Self-agency lesson: Treat a rehearing as a chance to simplify. Narrow disputes. Prepare a joint balance sheet if possible. Make the Court’s task easy to perform correctly.

1. Suppression and administration of justice: protecting the rehearing from contamination.

The appellate Court ordered suppression to prevent prejudice to proper administration of justice. This signals a practical reality: appellate commentary about improper disclosure of offers and other flaws can affect the fairness of the rehearing. Courts may limit publication to preserve clean reconsideration.

Self-agency lesson: Respect suppression boundaries and focus on building the case for rehearing rather than re-litigating narrative in public.

Legal Basis

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):

1. s 79: The statutory power to alter property interests, which is a structured discretion requiring identification of the pool, assessment of contributions, consideration of future needs factors, and a just and equitable outcome.

2. s 75(2): The factors relevant to future needs adjustments in property matters, including age, health, income earning capacity, care of children, and other relevant circumstances.

3. s 117: Costs discretion, which in family law generally starts from the premise that each party bears their own costs unless the Court orders otherwise, and which permits consideration of settlement offers in a proper costs context.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth):

r 4.07: A central procedural protection concerning offers and the privilege attaching to settlement communications, supporting orthodox sequencing of substantive determination and then costs.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth):

s 35: The appellate Court’s discretion to admit further evidence on appeal.

Evidence Chain

Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions, applied as a chain:

1. Evidence: Multiple valuation disputes existed in the balance sheet, including assets, liabilities, and superannuation values.

2. Finding problem: The primary judge did not determine many of those disputes.

3. Legal consequence: Without findings on the pool, the s 79 discretion lacks a fundamental foundation.

4. Evidence: “Add-backs” were treated as notional property positions, yet the final orders required actual cash payments to the Respondent to equalise those add-backs.

5. Legal consequence: Converting a notional adjustment into a cash transfer requires explanation grounded in principle; absent reasons, the order cannot be meaningfully justified.

6. Evidence: Costs were determined in the same reasons as substantive property orders, with settlement offer material being disclosed prematurely.

7. Legal consequence: Procedural fairness in costs was compromised because the Appellant was denied a proper opportunity to present a costs case after knowing the substantive result.

Judicial Original Quotation

“The schedule agreed to was that the husband had, at time of trial … those figures being different from the wife’s post-trial submissions … There were no questions about the UK … pension. The wife was guessing.” :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

This quotation is determinative because it demonstrates how a court’s treatment of disputed financial assertions affects whether a party is credited with a legitimate contention or dismissed as speculative. But the appellate Court’s broader point was not that one party guessed; it was that the primary judge still had to determine the disputes presented, rather than leaving key figures unresolved and then making distributive orders.

“What she contends is nothing more than the raw, unvarnished truth.” :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

This passage mattered because it reflects the appellate Court’s acceptance that, on the numbers and order structure, the first-instance outcome left one party with few actual assets and significant liabilities. It illustrates that appellate scrutiny can turn on practical effect, not merely stated intention.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

In appellate terms, the “losing party” at first instance was the Appellant, but on appeal the Appellant succeeded because the reasoning and structure of the first-instance orders were legally unsafe. The first-instance process failed in ways that should matter to any litigant:

1. The case presentation may have allowed too many disputed items to remain unresolved without forcing findings. If a party does not press for specific findings, the Court may drift into broad-brush conclusions.

2. The orders were permitted to become mechanically drafted without the Court ensuring they reflected the reasons. Where a judge instructs a party to re-draft orders, the risk is that the final product introduces concepts not explained by reasons, such as turning add-backs into cash repayments.

3. Costs became entangled with the substantive decision. This is a procedural trap: if costs are argued too early, settlement communications can improperly influence the decision-making environment.

4. The numbers were not converted into a clear “start-to-finish” outcome narrative. Courts decide on evidence, but they also require an intelligible pathway. Without a clear balance sheet and outcome summary, the orders become vulnerable.

Implications

1. You build power in litigation by making the Court’s job decidable. A clear, evidence-backed balance sheet is not paperwork; it is the framework that forces findings and protects you from unexplained outcomes.

2. Do not let “add-back” language become a moral accusation. Force it back into law: what is the legal purpose, what is the evidentiary basis, and is it notional adjustment or claimed repayment?

3. Always translate orders into lived reality. If you cannot explain in plain words what you will receive, what you will owe, and what you will control after orders, then the orders are not yet safe.

4. Settlement offers are powerful, but only when used at the right time and in the right forum. Protect privilege and sequencing, because once fairness is compromised, the whole process can collapse.

5. Self-agency means disciplined preparation, not louder argument. Your strongest move is to present the Court with a structured chain: documents → findings → pool → division → effect → justice.

Q&A Session

Q1: Why is it such a big problem if the judge did not decide a few small disputed values?

A1: Because property division under s 79 depends on knowing what is being divided. Even small disputes can change the fairness of the outcome when the pool is modest, and more importantly, a pattern of unresolved disputes means the Court has not performed the fact-finding task necessary to justify the exercise of discretion.

Q2: What is an “add-back” in simple terms?

A2: It is a notional accounting adjustment used when one party is said to have spent, disposed of, or retained money in a way that should be treated as still part of their effective property position. It is usually not a debt repayment order; it is a tool to avoid unfair advantage in the distribution. If it is transformed into an actual repayment, the Court must explain why.

Q3: Why did costs become a fairness problem?

A3: Because costs normally follow after the substantive decision. If the Court considers settlement offers before deciding the merits, it risks contamination of the substantive reasoning. If one party is not given a proper opportunity to present costs submissions after the result, procedural fairness is compromised.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Family Law Property Settlement Appeal, including costs appeal and adequacy of reasons challenge

Judgment Nature Definition: Appellate judgment setting aside final property settlement orders and a costs order, with remitter for rehearing

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Execution Instruction Applied

The following are rigorous reference frameworks only. Outcomes tend to be determined by the specific evidence, credibility findings, and the Court’s structured application of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Nothing below should be treated as a guarantee, and each element should be assessed against the actual facts and admissible proof in the particular matter.

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship, Section 4AA

If a matter turns on whether parties were in a de facto relationship, the Court examines the totality of the relationship, including these nine considerations:

1. Duration of the relationship: Whether it reached the general two-year threshold, noting exceptions can apply.

2. Nature and extent of common residence: Whether the parties lived together, and whether cohabitation was continuous, intermittent, or largely separate.

3. Whether a sexual relationship exists or existed: Whether that element was present and how it fits within the broader relationship context.

4. Degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any financial support arrangements: Whether there was shared income management, reliance, or mutual financial planning.

5. Ownership, use and acquisition of property: Whether assets were in joint or sole names, and how property was used during the relationship.

6. Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: Whether the relationship operated as a shared domestic and emotional partnership rather than an arm’s length association.

7. Care and support of children: Whether the parties jointly cared for children, financially or practically.

8. Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: Whether family, friends, and community viewed them as a couple.

9. Registration of the relationship, if any, under a prescribed law of a State or Territory: Whether formal registration exists, which may influence characterisation.

Self-agency checklist: If you need to prove or disprove de facto status, gather objective records: shared address evidence, joint bills, bank arrangements, joint purchases, communications evidencing commitment, and third-party evidence of public reputation.

Property Settlement: The Four-Step Process

Step 1: Identification and Valuation of the Net Asset Pool

1. Identify all assets, liabilities, superannuation, and financial resources.

2. Require disclosure: bank statements, loan statements, superannuation statements, credit card statements, tax statements, and property valuations.

3. Determine disputed values with findings: where parties propose competing values, the Court tends to make findings based on reliable evidence, including expert valuations where necessary.

4. Confirm whether items are truly assets or merely alleged: for example, alleged parent loans tend to require proof of advance, intention to repay, and enforceability.

Risk warning: If valuation disputes are left unresolved, an appellate challenge risk tends to be relatively high because the pool cannot be confidently divided.

Step 2: Assessment of Contributions

1. Financial contributions at the commencement: initial assets, savings, gifts, inheritances applied to property.

2. Financial contributions during the relationship: wages used for mortgage, renovations, investments, business growth.

3. Non-financial contributions: renovations, improvements, unpaid labour that increases asset value.

4. Contributions to the welfare of the family: homemaker and parenting contributions, including facilitation of the other party’s earning capacity.

Risk warning: Contribution findings tend to be sensitive to credibility and documentary support. Unsupported assertions often attract reduced weight.

Step 3: Adjustment for Future Needs, Section 75(2) Factors

A future needs adjustment tends to depend on:

1. Age and state of health: including diagnosed medical conditions and their impact on earning capacity.

2. Income, property, and financial resources: actual income and access to resources.

3. Physical and mental capacity for appropriate gainful employment.

4. Care of children and responsibility for others, affecting work capacity.

5. Standard of living that is reasonable in the circumstances.

6. Duration of relationship and impact on earning capacity and career development.

7. Any other relevant circumstance, including disparity in post-separation financial burdens.

Risk warning: Where a major health event emerges post-trial, parties tend to face high risk if they do not pursue the correct procedural pathway to place admissible evidence before the Court.

Step 4: Just and Equitable

1. The Court must consider whether it is just and equitable to make any order at all.

2. If orders are made, the Court must ensure the outcome is fair in all circumstances and explain why.

3. In practice, the “sanity check” requires a clear articulation of the practical outcome: what each party receives, what each owes, and how sale proceeds and liabilities are allocated.

Risk warning: A mere statement that the result is “just and equitable” tends to be inadequate where the reasoning does not show the pool and the practical effect of orders.

Parenting Matters: Section 60CC Framework

If parenting is in issue, the Court’s evaluation tends to apply:

Primary considerations:

1. The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.

2. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, with greater weight given to protection from harm.

Additional considerations include:

1. Views expressed by the child, depending on maturity and understanding.

2. Nature of the child’s relationship with each parent and other significant persons.

3. Willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship.

4. Likely effect of changes to the child’s circumstances.

5. Practical difficulty and expense of spending time with each parent.

6. Capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs.

7. Maturity, sex, lifestyle, and background of the child, including cultural considerations where relevant.

8. Attitude of each parent to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood.

9. Any family violence order and relevant findings.

Self-agency note: Even where parenting is resolved by consent, parenting responsibilities can still influence future needs in property outcomes, especially where care arrangements affect work capacity.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Where statutory avenues are constrained or where strict property division does not address moral realities, equity and common law doctrines may be explored as alternative or supportive paths, although outcomes tend to depend heavily on clear proof.

Promissory and Proprietary Estoppel

Core questions:

1. Was there a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about property or financial benefit?

2. Did you rely on that promise to your detriment, such as spending money, labour, or giving up work opportunities?

3. Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from the promise?

Practical relevance to property disputes: If one party induced the other to act on an assurance about property, equity may restrain the promisor from departing from that assurance, potentially affecting the ultimate adjustment.

Risk warning: Estoppel claims tend to face relatively high risk if the promise is vague, informal, or contradicted by objective conduct.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Core questions:

1. Did the other party receive a benefit at your expense, such as money or unpaid labour?

2. Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without compensation?

3. Is a constructive trust or equitable charge appropriate to reflect beneficial ownership or restitution?

Practical relevance: Where legal title does not reflect contributions, equity can provide a pathway to recognise beneficial interests, though in family law the statutory scheme often addresses this through contributions analysis.

Risk warning: Courts tend to require coherent evidence of the benefit and its connection to the claimed equity remedy.

Procedural Fairness

Core questions:

1. Were you afforded an opportunity to be heard on issues that affected the outcome?

2. Was there any practical unfairness in the sequencing of issues, such as costs being dealt with before substantive judgment?

3. Was there apprehended bias or contamination, such as exposure to settlement offer material at the wrong time?

Practical relevance: Even within family law, procedural fairness tends to be a decisive lever on appeal when the process undermines a party’s ability to present their case.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

1. De facto threshold: Two-year relationship duration is a common gateway, though exceptions may apply.

2. Disclosure threshold: Parties are expected to provide full and frank disclosure. Failure tends to increase litigation risk and can affect add-backs and credibility.

3. Evidence threshold for valuations: Where values are disputed, objective proof tends to be required, including statements and expert evidence where appropriate.

4. Appeals threshold: Discretionary appeals tend to require identifiable House v The King type error, including wrong principle, failure to consider material, mistaken fact, or outcome that is unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Exceptional Channels

1. De facto exception pathway: If under two years, a party may still proceed if there is a child, registration, or substantial contributions that would produce serious injustice if no order were made.

2. Post-trial change pathway: Where circumstances materially change after trial, statutory mechanisms may permit reopening, but parties tend to need to follow the correct procedure, grounded in admissible evidence.

3. Costs sequencing pathway: Where costs fairness is compromised, appellate intervention tends to be available because the party was denied a proper opportunity to be heard in the correct procedural order.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the standard thresholds are not met. Compare your circumstances against exceptions carefully, because they tend to be decisive when properly evidenced.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This authority is suited to submissions involving:

1. Adequacy of reasons in discretionary family law property decisions.

2. The necessity of determining disputed asset and liability values before dividing a property pool.

3. The proper conceptual handling of add-backs as notional adjustments, and the need for reasons if converted into real payments.

4. Procedural fairness in costs, particularly the timing of costs argument and the protected status of settlement offers until the appropriate stage.

Citation Method

As positive support:

1. Where your matter involves unresolved valuation disputes, this case can be used to argue that orders should not be made without findings that permit construction of a coherent balance sheet and practical outcome.

2. Where an opposing party seeks to convert add-backs into repayment obligations without reasons, this case supports the proposition that such a shift requires a principled explanation.

As a distinguishing reference:

1. If the opposing party relies on this authority, you may distinguish by demonstrating that in your matter the pool was determined, valuation disputes were resolved, and the reasons clearly articulated the practical outcome and the just and equitable rationale.

Anonymisation Rule: Use procedural titles such as Appellant and Respondent in your own discussion and avoid naming parties beyond what is required for citation of the reported case.

---

Conclusion

This appellate decision reinforces a simple but powerful principle: in family law property cases, justice is built from disciplined fact-finding, transparent arithmetic, and reasons that show the pathway from evidence to outcome. When a court fails to determine the pool, fails to expose the real-world effect of orders, and blurs notional accounting tools into unexplained repayments, the orders tend to become legally unsafe.

Golden Sentence: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Babington & Livesey [2023] FedCFamC1A 139), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.