On a family law appeal arising from marriage breakdown, the court upheld the refusal of an adjournment and rejected an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias against the trial judge.
It also upheld the setting aside of a domestic contract under s. 56(4)(b) of the Family Law Act where the respondent did not understand the nature or consequences of the agreement and had no meaningful independent legal advice.
The court held that, although unjust enrichment was established, the trial judge erred by granting a proprietary constructive trust without first considering whether a monetary remedy would suffice under the Kerr framework.
The proper remedy was equalization under the Family Law Act, resulting in an equalization payment of $390,646.77 secured by a charge on the farm.
Retroactive child support from the date of separation was upheld, but interest on arrears was reduced from 10 per cent to 3 per cent, and the loan repayment order was set aside.
