Australian Family Law Property Appeal: Factual Error in Valuation of Related Party Loan Leads to Recalculation of Adjusting Payment

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Dohman & Riain [2025] FedCFamC1A 32, 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.

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: McClelland DCJ, Wilson and Campton JJ
Cause of Action: Appeal from a Family Law property adjustment order.
Judgment Date: 4 March 2025

Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Family Law Property Division
Keyword 3: Appellate Review
Keyword 4: Valuation of Liabilities
Keyword 5: Post-Separation Contributions
Keyword 6: Disclosure Deficiencies

Background:
This matter concerned an appeal by the wife (Appellant) against a single order made by the primary judge regarding the adjustment of property between the parties. The core of the appeal related to a factual finding concerning the value of a loan liability attributed to the husband’s (Respondent’s) controlled entity. The Appellant contended that this finding was erroneous on the evidence, thereby impacting the quantum of the adjusting payment ordered. The remaining 15 orders in the suite of property adjustments were not challenged.

Core Disputes and Claims:
The Appellant sought to overturn a specific factual finding made by the primary judge concerning a loan purportedly owed by L Pty Ltd (a company controlled by the Respondent) to the Respondent’s mother. The Appellant argued that this factual error led to an incorrect valuation of the property pool, resulting in an insufficient adjusting payment to her. The Appellant specifically sought for the Full Court to re-exercise discretion and vary the quantum of payment. The Respondent initially agreed to the re-exercise of discretion but later indicated a preference for remission if error was established.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between Ms Dohman (the wife) and Mr Riain (the husband) began with cohabitation in 2000, leading to their marriage in 2012. Their journey together, marked by the arrival of three children, now aged 14, 12, and 10, entered a new phase with their final separation in 2019. This separation, however, did not immediately dissolve their shared living arrangements, as they continued to reside under the same roof until 2021 when the wife sought independent rental accommodation.

From a financial perspective, their lives became intricately entwined through various corporate entities and property acquisitions. Early in 2005, the wife established H Pty Ltd, becoming its sole director and shareholder. This company served as the trustee for the P Trust, which subsequently acquired the Town C property for approximately AUD $225,000. The husband later joined H Pty Ltd as a director in late 2006. In 2006, the parties purchased their home in Suburb G for AUD $425,000, financed through a refinance of the mortgage on the Town C property.

The couple’s financial ventures expanded further in mid-2014 with the incorporation of W Pty Ltd, acting as the trustee for the W Unit Trust. The wife became a director of W Pty Ltd in mid-2016. Concurrently, in 2014, the W Unit Trust, through its trustee, purchased the Suburb AA property. By early 2015, the husband incorporated K Pty Ltd, serving as the corporate trustee for the K Trust. Later in 2016, the parties jointly acquired the Suburb E property for AUD $1.28 million.

The seeds of future litigation were sown on 24 September 2019 when Mr U, a beneficial holder of 40 per cent of units in the L Unit Trust (a trust where L Pty Ltd, incorporated by the husband in early 2015, was the trustee), initiated proceedings against the wife, the husband, and K Pty Ltd. Mr U also sought leave to proceed against L Pty Ltd and W Pty Ltd. The wife was eventually released from these proceedings. This extensive litigation was eventually settled in early 2021 through a Deed of Settlement and Release. A key term of this Deed stipulated the transfer of shares in L Pty Ltd, held by Mr U and Ms V, to the husband (or his nominee). The husband elected to transfer these shares to the parties’ minor children, a decision that occurred post-separation in November 2021. The settlement required the husband to pay AUD $800,000 to Mr U, with AUD $500,000 sourced directly from the sale of the Suburb AA property in mid-2021 for AUD $2.01 million. The remaining AUD $300,000’s source became a point of contention.

The complexities arising from these intertwined financial dealings, the timing of various transactions relative to the parties’ separation, and the subsequent litigation and settlement formed the intricate backdrop against which the primary judge had to determine the final property adjustment.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:
The Appellant (wife) challenged the primary judge’s factual findings regarding a purported loan from the Respondent’s (husband’s) mother to L Pty Ltd, a company where the husband held a beneficial interest.
* Loan from Mother: The wife argued that the evidence presented (financial statements of L Pty Ltd, loan agreement) was insufficient to prove that the funds, particularly AUD $210,000 attributed to the 2021 financial year, were “in fact advanced” in accordance with the loan agreement’s terms. She highlighted the absence of corroborating bank statements for these specific transactions.
* Jones v Dunkel Inference: The wife contended that the primary judge erred in failing to draw an adverse Jones v Dunkel inference from the husband’s mother not giving evidence, which could have shed light on the nature and quantum of the loan.
* Post-Separation Contributions: The wife challenged the weight afforded to the husband’s post-separation contributions in maintaining real property. She argued that the primary judge failed to adequately consider the husband’s financial resources and lack of disclosure regarding his financial circumstances, implying that other undisclosed funds might have supported these contributions.
* “Double Count” Allegation: The wife asserted a “limited ‘double count’” error, arguing that approximately AUD $70,300 (relating to the 2022 and 2023 financial years) was improperly included as a liability of L Pty Ltd, thereby reducing its value and concurrently accounting for 10 per cent of the husband’s post-separation payments.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:
The Respondent (husband) opposed the appeal, asserting the correctness of the primary judge’s findings.
* Loan from Mother: The husband relied on a loan agreement dated 13 May 2015 between L Pty Ltd and his mother (Exhibit 33), which stipulated a loan “up to $550,000” at 10 per cent interest, repayable “on the sale of the [Suburb N] property” and “strictly for the purpose of maintaining the [Suburb N] property.” He also presented annual financial statements of L Pty Ltd (Exhibit 35), which recorded the increasing liability to his mother.
* Post-Separation Contributions: The husband presented a self-authored table (Exhibit 41) detailing his contributions to mortgage loans and outgoings for the properties, totalling AUD $707,840 in the post-separation period. These contributions were funded either by his own income or loans from family and friends. He argued these were significant efforts to preserve the property portfolio, leading to capital growth.
* Disclosure: The husband noted that despite the wife’s complaints about his disclosure, the primary judge ultimately found that his disclosure, while “subpar,” did not indicate undisclosed income or assets that would materially affect the asset pool, except for some publicly listed shares.

Core Dispute Points:
1. Validity and Quantum of Mother’s Loan: Whether the AUD $495,081 loan from the husband’s mother to L Pty Ltd, as recorded in the 2023 financial statements, was a legally enforceable liability, particularly the AUD $210,000 portion advanced in the 2021 financial year, which the husband claimed was used to acquire other unit holders’ interests.
2. Impact on Valuation: How the correct (or incorrect) treatment of this loan affects the net asset value of L Pty Ltd and, consequently, the overall property pool for distribution.
3. Appellate Review of Discretion: Whether the primary judge’s global assessment of contributions, which implicitly accounted for the husband’s post-separation financial assistance from family, constituted an appealable error.
4. Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence adduced at trial, particularly regarding the source of funds for the AUD $300,000 settlement payment and the specific advances from the husband’s mother, was adequate for the primary judge’s findings.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The adversarial process in family law litigation often relies heavily on affidavits to frame each party’s narrative and present their version of facts, supported by documentary evidence. In this case, the clarity and consistency of the affidavits proved to be a critical, yet problematic, aspect of the trial. The primary judge, in a commendable effort to navigate the “chaotic material deficiently adduced” by the parties, was compelled to draw conclusions from a less than ideal evidentiary foundation.

The strategic intent behind the judge’s procedural directions regarding affidavits is to ensure a fair and efficient trial by requiring parties to clearly articulate their case and disclose all relevant financial information. This framework aims to crystallise issues, streamline the presentation of evidence, and prevent “trial by ambush.” However, in this matter, the affidavits, rather than clarifying, contributed to the convoluted nature of the financial issues.

The wife’s initial affidavit evidence and Case Outline document, for instance, did not explicitly flag the fact and value of the husband’s mother’s loan to L Pty Ltd as a central dispute. This omission significantly constrained her ability to challenge this issue vigorously at trial, as a party is generally bound by the way they conducted their case at first instance. This highlights a strategic boundary between untruths and facts: a factual assertion, unchallenged at trial, gains significant weight, making it difficult to overturn on appeal without demonstrating a clear, demonstrable error.

Conversely, the husband’s affidavit, while detailing payments made for the settlement of the L Unit Trust dispute (AUD $500,000 from the Suburb AA property sale and an additional AUD $300,000), lacked specific explanations for the source of the latter sum. During cross-examination, the husband stated that AUD $210,000 of the AUD $300,000 came from his mother, purportedly to acquire the interests of other unit holders. However, the absence of documentary evidence verifying the receipt and payment of this AUD $210,000 created a significant evidentiary gap. The wife’s counsel, while cross-examining the husband on these bank statements, pointed out the lack of clarity on the source of these “loans,” inferring that without proper explanation, these funds represented undisclosed financial resources. This strategic interrogation in cross-examination, though not leading to a conclusive finding at trial, laid the groundwork for the appellate challenge.

The primary judge, at paragraphs [30] and [31] of the reasons, explicitly noted deficiencies in both parties’ financial disclosure. While finding the husband’s disclosure “subpar,” His Honour did not conclude it was so deficient as to impact the overall asset pool, with the exception of some minor publicly listed shares. This judicial finding indicates that mere “lack of ideal” disclosure, without evidence of deliberate concealment impacting the overall pool, may not be sufficient to constitute a material error, particularly if not vigorously pursued with clear evidence at trial. The disparate articulation of facts and the gaps in evidentiary support within both parties’ affidavits ultimately shaped the difficult landscape for the primary judge’s determinations.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

In this appeal, prior to the final hearing, no specific procedural arrangements or interlocutory orders were detailed in the provided judgment extract. The focus of the appeal was on the final substantive property orders made by the primary judge.

The orders issued by the primary judge on 22 August 2024, and subsequently amended on 26 September 2024 (pursuant to r 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), formed a suite of 16 orders designed to adjust the parties’ property interests. The central order under appeal was:

1. That the husband pay to the wife the sum of $300,814 $400,564 within 30 days.

This order was the sole focus of the wife’s appeal, with the remaining 15 orders regarding property division not being challenged. The strikethrough and new figure indicate the outcome of the appellate decision, which is explained in subsequent chapters.

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

The trial before the primary judge unfolded over three days in August 2024, presenting a complex and often “sub-optimal” evidentiary landscape, particularly concerning the parties’ financial contributions and liabilities. The husband was self-represented, while the wife had legal representation. A key challenge for the primary judge was the “limited and haphazard” evidence, which at times blurred the lines between individual and corporate financial contributions.

The cross-examination process was critical in testing the veracity and source of various financial transactions. One of the most decisive areas of evidence confrontation revolved around the asserted loan of AUD $495,081 from the husband’s mother to L Pty Ltd. The husband provided a loan agreement (Exhibit 33) and annual financial statements for L Pty Ltd (Exhibit 35). However, during cross-examination, the wife’s counsel highlighted significant gaps in the evidence. Specifically, counsel pointed out the lack of clarity regarding the AUD $300,000 paid to settle the previous litigation, arguing that its source was unexplained and not directly from the sale proceeds of the Suburb AA property. Counsel also scrutinised the specific AUD $210,000 purportedly advanced by the husband’s mother in the 2021 financial year, challenging whether it was “in fact advanced” according to the loan agreement’s terms. The absence of corroborating bank statements for these transactions was a critical point of attack, as was the mother’s failure to give evidence.

In navigating these complexities, the primary judge acknowledged the difficult position created by the parties’ conduct. His Honour candidly stated:

“[43] …The most recent financial statements for the entity were in evidence and revealed the mortgage balance for the CBA loan in the sum of $1,245,213 as at 30 June 2023 and the following debts listed as ‘related party payables’:
Loan W Unit Trust $10,175
Loan Ms CC $495,081
Loan K Trust $284,206
Loan Mr Riain $45,012
Total $834,474

“[43] …I accept that the approach of valuing the shares by taking the value of the real property and deducting the secured debt (mortgage) and the one debt which appears on its face to be repayable is a less than ideal approach but the manner in which the parties conducted their case left this as the only credible approach to the conundrum…” (Emphasis added).

This statement reflects the primary judge’s frustration with the inadequate evidentiary material, yet underscores the judicial duty to make findings based on the available, albeit imperfect, evidence. The judge’s decision to accept the AUD $495,081 figure, despite acknowledged limitations, was a pragmatic attempt to quantify the liability under challenging circumstances. The factual findings regarding these liabilities directly drove the ultimate property adjustment, demonstrating how the objective (or objectively determined) chain of evidence, however incomplete, forms the bedrock of judicial decision-making.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), in Dohman & Riain [2025] FedCFamC1A 32, delivered the following final judgment:

ORDERS

NAA 240 of 2024
SYC 2118 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MS DOHMAN
Appellant

AND:
MR RIAIN
Respondent

Order made by: MCCLELLAND DCJ, WILSON AND CAMPTON JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 4 March 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The orders made on 22 August 2024 and as amended on 26 September 2024 are confirmed save that Order 13 is varied to delete the value “$300,814” and insert the value “$400,564”.
3. The appellant is granted a costs certificate pursuant to s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to her in respect of the costs incurred by her in relation to the appeal.
4. The respondent is granted a costs certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to him in respect of the costs incurred by him in relation to the appeal.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Dohman & Riain has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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

Disassembly of Judgment Basis:

Special Analysis

The Full Court’s decision in Dohman & Riain offers crucial insights into appellate intervention in complex family law property disputes, particularly when trial-level evidence is deficient. A significant aspect of this judgment is the Full Court’s willingness to re-exercise discretion pursuant to section 36 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), rather than remitting the matter for a rehearing. This approach was driven by the Court’s commitment to finalise litigation “as quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently as possible,” a principle reinforced by section 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and rule 1.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The ability of an appellate court to correct a “confined error” directly, without exposing parties to further litigation costs and emotional toll, holds significant jurisprudential value, particularly in complex financial cases where the parties’ “sub-optimal conduct of the trial” contributed to the initial difficulties. The Full Court acknowledged the primary judge’s arduous task in “endeavouring to do the best [that] could be done within the deficient parameters presented by the parties,” highlighting the systemic challenges posed by inadequate evidence.

Judgment Points

The judgment underscores several noteworthy points:
* Disclosure Deficiencies: The Full Court upheld the primary judge’s finding that both parties exhibited “subpar” disclosure, yet crucially, this did not automatically lead to adverse inferences impacting the overall asset pool. This demonstrates that while disclosure is paramount, specific and material prejudice due to non-disclosure must be proven for it to significantly alter the property division, beyond minor items like publicly listed shares.
* Treatment of Post-Separation Gifts: The decision implicitly supports the principle that post-separation gifts of shares to children (where the gifting party could have received the asset themselves) may be treated as an asset of the gifting party for property division purposes, particularly when done in circumstances that remove the asset from the divisible pool.
* Appellate Restraint vs. Intervention: The Full Court’s nuanced approach of allowing the appeal on a specific, confined factual error, while affirming the majority of the primary judge’s comprehensive orders, reflects the delicate balance between appellate deference to trial judges and the need to correct demonstrable errors to ensure a just and equitable outcome.

Legal Basis

The Full Court’s decision relied on:
* Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Governs the power of the court to make orders altering property interests, requiring a just and equitable outcome. The appeal challenged the application of this section based on a factual finding.
* Section 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Deals with the Full Court’s powers on appeal, including making any order it thinks appropriate or remitting for rehearing. The Court here opted for re-exercise of discretion.
* Section 36 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth): Provides the appellate court with broad powers to affirm, reverse, vary, or make alternative judgments, or remit for rehearing.
* Rules 1.04, 10.13, 10.14(b), and 13.39 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth): These rules address the overriding purpose of the rules (facilitating the just resolution of disputes), power to vary orders, review of judgments for errors, and the adducing of further evidence on appeal, respectively.

Evidence Chain

The key evidence chain and its flaws relevant to the appeal included:
* Loan Agreement (Exhibit 33): A 2015 agreement between L Pty Ltd and the husband’s mother, stipulating a loan “up to $550,000” for specific property maintenance, repayable upon sale. The specific use of the AUD $210,000 advanced in 2021 was not definitively linked to this agreement’s terms.
* Annual Financial Statements of L Pty Ltd (Exhibit 35): These statements, prepared by accountants, recorded an increasing “related party payables” liability to the husband’s mother, eventually reaching AUD $495,081 by 30 June 2023. These documents formed the basis of the primary judge’s finding.
* Husband’s Testimony: The husband claimed AUD $210,000 of the AUD $300,000 paid to settle the Mr U litigation came from his mother, purportedly to acquire unit holders’ shares. However, this was unsupported by banking records or specific documentary evidence.
* Absence of Corroboration: Crucially, there was no independent corroborating evidence, such as bank statements, to verify the actual advance of the AUD $210,000 from the mother to L Pty Ltd in the 2021 financial year, nor the subsequent transfer of these funds for their stated purpose.

Judicial Original Quotation

The primary judge, at paragraph [42], acknowledged the evidentiary gap regarding the mother’s loan:

“[42] I accept that the financial statements of the company have recorded the funds advanced by the husband’s mother historically and accept that the husband’s capacity to acquire the interests of his previous business partners has probably been largely dependent upon the injection of cash from outside the company in circumstances where neither he nor the wife had funds available in their own names. I accept that the husband says that there is interest payable on these monies, but given that I cannot be satisfied that all of the funds were in fact advanced in accordance with the terms of the loan, then doing the best I can with the available evidence, I will accept the figure from the most recent set of financial statements in evidence before me namely $495,081 (excluding interest).” (Emphasis added).
This extract from the primary judge’s reasons is pivotal. It articulates the precise point of factual uncertainty: while the historical pattern of funding was accepted, the judge could not be “satisfied” that all of the AUD $495,081 (specifically the AUD $210,000 portion) was advanced in accordance with the specific terms of the loan agreement. This inability to be satisfied directly led to the primary judge’s ultimate reliance on the recorded financial statement figure, which the Full Court found to be an error of fact because the evidence did not support that the $210,000 was legally enforceable as a loan under the specified terms.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The wife’s partial success on appeal highlights the critical importance of a precise and consistent evidentiary strategy at trial, coupled with a clear articulation of legal arguments. Her partial failure on other grounds, and the primary judge’s initial error, can be attributed to several factors:
* Shifting Arguments: The wife’s contentions on appeal regarding the mother’s loan differed from those made at trial, where the issue of the loan’s existence and value was not initially identified as a core dispute. Parties are bound by the conduct of their case at first instance.
* Lack of Corroboration: The wife’s submission concerning the “source of funds” for the AUD $300,000 settlement payment lacked conclusive evidence. While she asserted other “plausible alternate sources,” these were not sufficiently adduced or cross-examined upon at trial to sway the primary judge.
* Disclosure Deficiencies by Both Parties: Both parties’ “subpar” disclosure compounded the evidentiary challenge. While the wife sought adverse inferences against the husband for non-disclosure, her own disclosure was also found to be less than ideal. This diluted the force of her arguments in this regard.
* Inadequate Challenge to Financial Statements: Despite identifying concerns about the loans, the wife did not sufficiently challenge the accuracy of L Pty Ltd’s financial statements themselves up to 30 June 2020, nor did she compel further disclosure that might have clarified the source of funds for the later AUD $210,000 advance. This allowed the primary judge to rely on the presented financial statements, albeit with reservations.

Key to Victory:
The Appellant’s victory, though partial, hinged on demonstrating a “confined error” of fact where the primary judge, despite acknowledging evidentiary gaps, made a finding (regarding the AUD $210,000 portion of the mother’s loan) that was not fully supported by the specific terms of the loan agreement or corroborating evidence. The Full Court, by conducting a “real review of all the evidence,” found that this specific portion of the loan did not meet the criteria of a legally enforceable debt as intended by the initial loan agreement, thereby impacting the correct valuation of L Pty Ltd’s liabilities.

Implications
* Prioritise comprehensive and timely disclosure of all financial information. Any attempt to conceal or obscure assets and liabilities will likely be counterproductive and invite adverse judicial scrutiny.
* When challenging specific financial arrangements, especially those with related parties, ensure robust, corroborated evidence. Verbal claims without supporting documents (like bank statements or formal loan agreements) are often insufficient to prove a legally enforceable obligation.
* Maintain consistency in legal arguments from trial to appeal. Shifting grounds or introducing new contentions on appeal without proper foundation at trial can significantly undermine the strength of your case.
* Be proactive in addressing evidentiary gaps at trial. If crucial documents or testimony are missing, actively seek their disclosure or call relevant witnesses, as the court operates on the evidence presented before it.
* Understand that even a “sub-optimal” trial, characterised by imperfect evidence from both sides, will result in a judgment based on the court’s “best efforts” to do justice. Correcting specific, clear errors on appeal offers a pathway for rectification, especially when broader re-hearings are undesirable due to cost and delay.

Q&A Session

Q1: What exactly was the “confined error” the Full Court found, and how did it change the outcome?
A1: The confined error concerned a AUD $210,000 portion of a larger AUD $495,081 loan from the husband’s mother to L Pty Ltd. The primary judge had included the entire AUD $495,081 as a legally enforceable liability, thereby reducing the value of L Pty Ltd. The Full Court found that the AUD $210,000 portion was not proven to have been advanced in accordance with the specific terms of the 2015 loan agreement, which strictly limited funds to property maintenance. By removing this AUD $210,000 from the enforceable liability, the value of L Pty Ltd increased, leading to an overall increase in the net property pool and subsequently raising the adjusting payment owed by the husband to the wife from AUD $300,814 to AUD $400,564.

Q2: Why didn’t the Full Court order a full rehearing, given the acknowledgment of “subpar” evidence at trial?
A2: The Full Court explicitly stated that a rehearing is an “order of last resort” due to the exasperating financial and emotional costs incurred by parties. Despite the “subpar” evidence, the error was identified as “discrete and confined.” Neither party sought to introduce new evidence on appeal, and they did not wish to disturb the other 15 orders in the property adjustment. Therefore, to finalise the litigation “as quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently as possible,” the Full Court chose to re-exercise its discretion and correct the specific error itself, rather than remitting the case for a fresh hearing.

Q3: What are the implications of the husband transferring shares to the children post-separation in this case?
A3: The primary judge treated the value of the shares transferred to the children as if they were still an asset of the husband, despite the legal transfer. This was because the husband “voluntarily caused the shares to be registered in the names of the parties’ minor children in circumstances where it was open to him… to have the shares transferred into his own name,” effectively removing it from his legally owned assets for property proceedings. This highlights that actions taken post-separation that diminish the marital asset pool, even if legally sound, may be ‘added back’ or accounted for as a contribution by the gifting party in family law property settlements to ensure a just and equitable division.

---

Part 3: Appendix – Core Practical Component Library

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
Case Subtype: De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law) – Property Settlement Appeal concerning the Valuation of Liabilities & Contributions.
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment.

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)
Core Test (Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 4AA):
* Duration of the relationship: (General rule: 2 years, unless exceptions apply, as per Section 4AA(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Nature and extent of common residence: (Did they live together? Was it continuous? Section 4AA(2)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Whether a sexual relationship exists: (Or existed, Section 4AA(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: (Any financial support arrangements? Section 4AA(2)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Ownership, use and acquisition of property: (Joint names or separate? Section 4AA(2)(d) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: (Was it casual or committed? Section 4AA(2)(e) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* The care and support of children: (Section 4AA(2)(f) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: (Did family/friends view them as a couple? Section 4AA(2)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).

Property Settlement – The Four-Step Process (pursuant to Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)):
* Identification and Valuation: Determine the net asset pool (assets minus liabilities). This involves identifying all property, liabilities, and financial resources (e.g., superannuation) of both parties, both joint and separate, at the date of the hearing, and attributing a current market value to each.
* Assessment of Contributions: Evaluate the contributions of each party to the acquisition, conservation, or improvement of the property, and to the welfare of the family. This includes:
* Financial contributions: (e.g., initial financial contributions, direct income, mortgage payments, inheritances, gifts, lump sum payments, Section 79(4)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Non-financial contributions: (e.g., renovations, repairs, direct labour, efforts in conservation or improvement of property, Section 79(4)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Contributions to the welfare of the family: (e.g., homemaker duties, parenting responsibilities, raising children, Section 79(4)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Adjustment for Future Needs (s 75(2) Factors): Consider the relevant factors impacting each party’s future needs and capacity, and determine if any adjustment is necessary to ensure a just and equitable outcome. Factors include:
* Age and health of each party (Section 75(2)(a) and (b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Income, property, and financial resources of each party (Section 75(2)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Capacity for gainful employment (Section 75(2)(d) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Care and control of children of the relationship (Section 75(2)(e) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Commitments to support oneself or other persons (Section 75(2)(f) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Standard of living that is reasonable (Section 75(2)(h) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Effect of any proposed order on the earning capacity of the party affected (Section 75(2)(k) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* Just and Equitable: The final assessment requires the court to consider whether the proposed division, after contributions and future needs adjustments, is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case (Section 79(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).

Parenting Matters (Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)):
* Primary Considerations (given greater weight):
* The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents (Section 60CC(2)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence (Section 60CC(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)). (Harm is given greater weight).
* Additional Considerations: (Section 60CC(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
* The views of the child (depending on maturity and understanding).
* The nature of the relationship of the child with each parent and other persons.
* The extent to which each parent has met their parental responsibilities.
* The capacity of each parent (or any other person) to provide for the needs of the child.
* The maturity, sex, lifestyle, and background (including culture and traditions) of the child and parents.
* The practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with and communicating with a parent.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

When strict statutory law may not fully address the complexities of a factual matrix, particularly in matters involving interwoven personal and financial relationships (such as in this Family Law case), principles of Equity can offer alternative avenues for relief.

If dealing with [Civil / Commercial / Property / Family / Estate] matters:
* Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
* Elements:
1. Clear and unequivocal promise or representation: Did the other party make a specific, unambiguous promise or represent a certain state of affairs (e.g., “this property will be yours,” or “I will always financially support this venture”)?
2. Reliance: Did you act or refrain from acting based on that promise or representation? This reliance must be reasonable in the circumstances.
3. Detriment: Did you suffer a detriment (e.g., financial loss, missed opportunities, expended labour, emotional distress) as a direct result of your reliance if the other party resiles from their promise?
4. Unconscionability: Would it be unconscionable (unjust or unfair) for the other party to go back on their promise or deny the representation?
* Result Reference: Even without a formal written contract, Equity may “estop” the other party from departing from their promise. This can lead to orders compelling the fulfillment of the promise or compensating the aggrieved party for their detriment.
* Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
* Elements for Unjust Enrichment:
1. Benefit to the defendant: Has the other party received a benefit (e.g., money, services, property improvements) at your expense?
2. At the expense of the plaintiff: Was this benefit received at your direct or indirect cost?
3. Unjust factor: Was there an “unjust factor” (e.g., mistake, compulsion, undue influence, failure of consideration, absence of contractual intent) that makes it unjust for the other party to retain the benefit without payment?
* Elements for Constructive Trust (as a remedy for Unjust Enrichment or Unconscionability):
1. Unconscionable conduct: Has the legal title holder of property acted unconscionably by denying another’s beneficial interest in that property?
2. Contribution to property: Has the aggrieved party made direct or indirect contributions to the acquisition, preservation, or improvement of the property with the expectation of a beneficial interest?
* Result Reference: The Court may order the restitution of the benefit received by the other party. In cases involving property, the Court may declare that you hold a beneficial interest in the asset via a Constructive Trust, effectively making the legal owner a trustee for your share, even without a formal agreement. This can be a potent tool to protect equitable interests arising from non-financial contributions or informal agreements.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds:

• De Facto Cohabitation Duration: Generally, a de facto relationship must have lasted for a period of at least 2 years (Section 4AA(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) to trigger the Family Law Act’s property adjustment provisions.
• Statute of Limitations (Contract): Typically 6 years from the date the cause of action accrues (e.g., for breach of contract claims under state Limitation Acts), though this may vary by jurisdiction and specific statutory provisions.
• Statute of Limitations (Personal Injury): Often 3 years from the date of injury or discovery of injury, subject to specific legislative frameworks (e.g., Civil Liability Act in various states/territories).
• Statutory Limit for Unfair Dismissal Filing: An application for unfair dismissal must generally be lodged with the Fair Work Commission within 21 calendar days after the dismissal took effect.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial):

• Family Law – De Facto Relationships (< 2 years):
  • Exemption: A court may still make property orders even if the de facto relationship lasted less than 2 years if:
    • There is a child of the relationship (Section 90SB(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)); or
    • The applicant has made substantial contributions (financial, non-financial, or to the welfare of the family) and a failure to make the order would result in serious injustice to the applicant (Section 90SB(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
• Personal Injury – Limitation Period Expired:
  • Extensions: Courts may grant extensions to statutory limitation periods in specific circumstances, such as:
    • Latent Damage: Where the injury or damage was not discoverable until a later date.
    • Legal Incapacity: If the claimant was a minor or suffered from a legal incapacity preventing them from pursuing the claim within the standard period.
    • Material Facts Not Ascertained: If material facts relating to the cause of action were not within the applicant’s means of knowledge until a later date.
• Migration Law – Filing Deadline Missed (Judicial Review):
  • Possible Relief: While strict deadlines apply (e.g., 28 days for judicial review in the Federal Court after notification of the decision), relief may be available in cases of:
    • Force Majeure: Unforeseeable circumstances preventing compliance (e.g., natural disaster, severe illness).
    • Administrative Error: A proven error by the Department or Tribunal that directly caused the missed deadline.
    • Jurisdictional Error: If the decision under review contains a serious legal error that goes to the decision-maker’s jurisdiction, a court may extend time in exceptional circumstances.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
* Appeals from Family Law property adjustment orders, particularly concerning factual findings regarding liabilities.
* Cases where the evidentiary record at trial was significantly deficient, leading to judicial difficulties in making findings.
* Discussions on the Full Court’s exercise of discretion to re-exercise judicial power directly to correct confined errors, prioritising efficiency and cost-saving in litigation.
* Arguments relating to the impact of parties’ conduct at trial (e.g., subpar disclosure, shifting arguments) on appellate review.

Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When your matter involves similar facts of unclear or poorly substantiated related-party loans impacting property valuations, citing this authority can strengthen your argument for a more rigorous approach to proof of such liabilities. It can also be used to support the Full Court’s power to correct a confined error directly where remittal would cause undue hardship.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case to argue for appellate deference despite clear errors, you should emphasize any uniqueness of the current matter, such as a different nature of the error, or stronger evidence of prejudice, to argue that this precedent’s specific outcome (re-exercise of discretion) is not directly applicable, or that the procedural failures at trial were not as severe as those in Dohman & Riain.

Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Appellant / Respondent.

Conclusion
The Dohman & Riain judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the imperative for meticulous evidence presentation and consistent legal argument in family law property disputes. It underscores that while courts strive for justice, the quality of information provided by litigants directly shapes the judicial outcome. This case reaffirms the appellate court’s commitment to efficiency and finality in litigation, even taking direct action to rectify discrete errors rather than prolonging disputes. 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 (Dohman & Riain [2025] FedCFamC1A 32), 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.