By and -

Key decisions

  • Marlin & Henson [2025] FedCFamC1A 71
  • Lehtinen & Lehtinen [2025] FedCFamC1A 69
  • Jakobsson & Jakobsson [2025] FedCFamC1A 47
  • DPP v Sackl [2025] VCC 402

PROPERTY

Court did not err by declining to deduct potential capital gains tax on investment properties – while appellant intended to sell within three – five years, he sought orders he retain the properties and opposed orders for sale

In Marlin & Henson [2025] FedCFamC1A 71 (30 April 2025), the Full Court (Gill, Howard and Christie JJ) heard an appeal by a de facto husband from final orders made by Hogan J in a de facto property case.

Considering his argument in relation to the treatment of potential capital gains tax (‘CGT’), the Full Court said (from [27]):

‘Evidence was led at trial to establish potential … CGT liabilities in respect of the real property held by the appellant. The appellant then relied upon Rosati [1998] FamCA 38 (“Rosati”); as support for the proposition that as the various properties had been acquired as investments it was then mandatory for the primary judge to take into account their corresponding potential CGT liabilities.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more