never mind the law feel the politics - Family Court of Australia

3say in White v White 5 and the subsequent Court of Appeal decision inCowan v Cowan 6 . Then came Lambert v Lambert 7 .5. It is understandable that the requirement to assess contributions in casesof this nature may arguably be seen to sit incompatibly with a societalcommitment to gender equality. But is that the test? Is it correct to saythat the Family Court is not “recognising contribution in the ‘special’ skillcases, it is rewarding financial success”, and that the Court was “doublyrewarding those at the top of the money pile because they happen to bethere” 8 . The academic view expressed by Ms Young is consistent with apanorama of articles by various commentators who mostly, as I see it,express their opinions garnered from the various reported appealjudgments surveyed by them, but without any proper attention to thecomplex and detailed evidentiary base upon which the findings andconclusions were made by the trial Judge. That is not a criticism on mypart, but a fact which is particularly significant given that a Judge at firstinstance heard, observed and considered a whole range of evidence overmany days.6. In Australia, the Full Court decisions in JEL v DDF and Figgins offer quitedivergent directions to this complex and sensitive question. Sensibly, thestarting point should be the statutory mandates pursuant to which theCourt is empowered to alter the existing property rights of parties to a5 (2001) AC 596; (2000) 2 FLR 9816 (2001) 2 FLR 1927 (2003) 1 FLR 1398 L Young: “Sissinghurst, Sackville-West and Special Skill” (1997) 11 Australian Journal of FamilyLaw 268 at 283