Artigas & Merino

Case [2025] FedCFamC2F 949

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Artigas & Merino [2025] FedCFamC2F 949

File number: SYC 6510 of 2023
Judgment of: DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND
Date of judgment: 10 July 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for an adjustment under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband was the principal income earner and funded the acquisition and maintenance of the former matrimonial home – Where the wife was the primary homemaker and caregiver after the birth of the parties’ child – Competing contentions over financial and non-financial contributions – Whether increase in husband’s shares and superannuation post-separation should form a separate property pool – One-pool approach adopted – Consideration of addbacks for funds expended by the wife – Future needs factors under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Final orders for lump sum payment to wife with settlement effected by sale of former matrimonial home – Just and equitable division of property.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, ss 75, 79
Cases cited:

Benson & Drury (2020) FLC 93-998; [2020] FamCAFC 303

Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545; [2013] FamCAFC 116

Britt & Britt (2017) FLC 93-764; [2017] FamCAFC 27

Carter & Wilson (2023) FLC 94-129; [2023] FedCFamC1A 9

Clauson and Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595; [1995] FamCA 10

Clives and Clives (2008) FLC 93-385; [2008] FamCAFC 172

Dickons v Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244; [2012] FamCAFC 154

DJM v JLM (1998) FLC 92-816; [1998] FamCA 97

Dovgan & Dovgan [2021] FamCA 306

Franklin & Franklin [2010] FamCAFC 131

Hickey and Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143; [2003] FamCA 395

Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25

Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898; [2019] FamCAFC 78

Jefferson & Coulston [2014] FamCA 1083

Keating & Keating (2019) FLC 93-894; [2019] FamCAFC 46

Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757; [1997] FamCA 27

Kowaliw and Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092; [1981] FamCA 70

Lenehan and Lenehan (1987) FLC 91-814; [1987] FamCA 8

Lovine & Connor (2012) FLC 93-515; [2012] FamCAFC 168

Maine v Maine (2016) 56 Fam LR 500; [2016] FamCAFC 270

Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605; [1984] HCA 21

Martell v Martell (2023) 66 Fam LR 650; [2023] FedCFamC1A 71

Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17

Omacini and Omacini (2005) FLC 93-218; [2005] FamCA 195

Petruski v Balewa (2013) 49 Fam LR 116; [2013] FamCAFC 15

S & S [2003] FamCA 905

Schaars & Schaars [2023] FedCFamC1F 12

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52

Teal v Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120

Tomasetti and Tomasetti (2000) FLC 93-023; [2000] FamCA 314

Townsend and Townsend (1995) FLC 92-569; [1994] FamCA 144

Trevi & Trevi (2018) FLC 93-858; [2018] FamCAFC 173

Trevi & Trevi (Re-Exercise) [2019] FamCAFC 51

Van der Linden & Kordell [2010] FamCAFC 157

Zao & Lee [2019] FamCAFC 169
Division: Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs: 124
Date…

Continue reading Artigas & Merino

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Artigas & Merino [2025] FedCFamC2F 949
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2F 949
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Ms Artigas made an application for property settlement against Mr Merino under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The case involved a dispute over the division of property acquired during the marriage, with significant contributions made by both parties. Ms Artigas argued for a fair division of the assets, particularly focusing on the increase in Mr Merino's shares and superannuation post-separation. Mr Merino contended that the court should consider these post-separation assets as his separate property. The court needed to decide whether the post-separation increase in assets should form part of the property pool and how to fairly distribute the assets between the parties.

The court adopted a one-pool approach, considering both financial and non-financial contributions made by each party. It recognised Ms Artigas' role as the primary homemaker and caregiver after the birth of their child and the husband's role as the principal income earner. The court also assessed the addbacks for funds expended by Ms Artigas and considered the future needs factors under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In reaching a just and equitable division of property, the court ordered a lump sum payment to Ms Artigas, to be settled by the sale of the former matrimonial home.

Deputy Chief Judge McClelland ordered that the parties sell the property located at GG Street, Suburb HH, and distribute the proceeds accordingly. The husband was to receive $11,000, and Ms Artigas was to receive $657,771.89. The remaining balance was to go to the husband. The court also provided for the appointment of a registrar or officer to execute any required documents if either party failed to comply within the stipulated timeframe. Both parties were to retain their own property and superannuation and be responsible for their own liabilities. This order ensured a fair division of the matrimonial assets, considering the unique circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 6510 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS ARTIGAS

Applicant

AND:

MR MERINO

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties shall forthwith do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to sell the property situated at GG Street, Suburb HH, being the whole of the land in title reference Lot …, Strata Plan …, for the best price reasonably obtainable and the following orders shall apply:

(a) the parties shall list the property for sale with an agent as agreed upon between the parties and failing agreement within fourteen (14) days as nominated by the husband (“the agent”);

(b) the parties shall instruct a lawyer as agreed upon by the parties and failing agreement within fourteen (14) days as nominated by the husband to have carriage of the sale of the property;

(c) the property shall be listed at a price and method as agreed upon by the parties and failing agreement within fourteen (14) days as nominated by the agent;

(d) on the settlement of the sale of the property the proceeds of sale are to be paid in the following manner and priority:

(i) all costs and expenses of sale including legal costs and disbursements, agent’s commission, marketing and auction expenses;

(ii) the amounts required to discharge the mortgage to NAB;

(iii) adjustments on settlement;

(iv) a payment to the husband of $11,000;

(v) a payment to the wife of $657,771.89;

(vi) the balance to the husband.

2. In the event either party refuses or neglects to execute a document or deed required to give effect to these orders within seven (7) days of being presented with such document or deed, then pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a registrar or other officer of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia be appointed to execute the said document or deed in the place of the defaulting party.

3. The parties shall otherwise retain all property and superannuation in their own names.

4. The parties shall otherwise be responsible for satisfying any liabilities in their own names.

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.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.