Barkley & Gammon

This matter concerned an application by Mr Barkley (the Applicant) against Ms Gammon (the Respondent) for the settlement of property following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. The dispute centred on the ownership and division of the former family home located at B Street, Town C, SA, which was registered in the Respondent's name but occupied by the Applicant and the parties' children. The proceedings were heard by Brown J in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine how the parties' non-superannuation assets should be divided, with a particular focus on the former family home. Key issues included the Applicant's contributions to the property, the Respondent's absence from the family home and her limited engagement with the proceedings, and the overall considerations of justice and equity in finalising the financial relationship between the parties. The court also had to address the division of other assets and liabilities, including debts owed to each party's parents and the costs of the proceedings.

Brown J reasoned that given the Applicant's primary parenting role and the Respondent's inability to discharge her parenting responsibilities, it was equitable for the Applicant to retain the former family home to provide stability for the children. The court applied a 70% / 30% split of the net non-superannuation assets in favour of the Applicant, valuing the net assets at $432,076.42. This resulted in the Respondent being entitled to $129,622.93. The court ordered the Respondent to transfer her interest in the B Street, Town C property to the Applicant, who was to pay the Respondent the calculated sum. The Applicant was also ordered to discharge any mortgages on the property and to indemnify the Respondent against all liabilities associated with it. The court further ordered the Applicant to indemnify the Respondent regarding a $10,000 debt to the Applicant's parents, and the Respondent to indemnify the Applicant regarding a $12,000 debt to the Respondent's mother.

In final orders, the court directed the transfer of the former family home to the Applicant upon payment of $129,622.93 to the Respondent. The Applicant was to retain his existing assets, and the Respondent was to retain hers, with superannuation entitlements to remain with each party. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs fixed at $11,007.25 from her settlement sum. The court appointed the Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to execute documents if either party failed to comply with the orders, pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). All other outstanding applications were dismissed.