BEATON and BALLAM - [2014] FCWA 20

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BEATONand BALLAM [2014] FCWA 20

CORAM: CRISFORD J

HEARD: 6, 7 & 14 MARCH 2014

DELIVERED : 28 MARCH 2014

FILE NO/S: PTW 3353 of 2012

BETWEEN: MS BEATON
Applicant
AND
MR BALLAM Respondent

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS - Where it is just and equitable to alter the parties' rights and interests in their property

FAMILY LAW - ASSET POOL - Whether invested conditional share units from employment plans are property or a financial resource - Where shares cannot be sold, transferred or dealt with until they vest - Invested shares a financial resource

FAMILY LAW - SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE - Where wife primary caregiver to parties' two children aged 11 and eight, the older suffering severe disabilities - Wife out of paid employment since 2002 - Entitlement made out

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr P Dowding SC
Respondent: Mr D Smith

Solicitors:

Applicant: Holden Barlow
Respondent: O'Sullivan Davies

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Beklar & Beklar [2013] FamCA 327
Bevan v Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545
Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
Gollings & Scott (2007) FLC 93-319
Hurst and Weber [2009] FamCAFC 137
Milankov & Milankov (2002) FLC 93-095
Nielson & Nielson [2012] FamCA 70
Sand and Sand [2012] FamCAFC 179
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Woollams and Woollams (2004) FLC 93-195

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

Introduction and background

1I am asked to determine how the assets [Ms Beaton] and [Mr Ballam] acquired during their 16 year relationship should be divided. The wife asks the Court to quantify an appropriate level of spousal maintenance for her support and also an appropriate level of child support for the two children of their relationship, [A] aged 11 and [B] aged eight.

Brief relevant chronology

2The wife and the husband met in 1994 and started living together in 1995. They married [in] 1996 in Sydney and separated on [in] April 2011 in Perth.
3The husband was originally employed as a [customer service representative]. He is now employed as the Vice President of [a project] within [a company]. The wife initially worked as a receptionist/administration assistant until the birth of [A] [in] 2002. The wife has not worked since that time. [B] was born [in] 2005.
4Dr [W], Paediatrician, reports A has Down Syndrome and an associated major diagnosis of severe intellectual handicap, autism and mild to moderate hearing loss. A had congenital heart disease in early life, but cardiac function is now normal. He has limited communication, with mostly single words, and only rare word combinations. A cannot read or write. He is incontinent of urine and faeces. He does not have severe aggression or self-injury. A cannot look after his nutritional needs independently and he requires assistance in dental care and some assistance in feeding. It is common ground…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BEATON and BALLAM

Details

AGLC: BEATON and BALLAM [2014] FCWA 20
Case: [2014] FCWA 20
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in the case were Beaton and Ballam, who were married and had two children together. The primary dispute was over the division of their property and the granting of spousal maintenance. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with deciding these issues. The central legal issues revolved around the classification of certain assets, specifically invested conditional share units from employment plans, and the determination of spousal maintenance based on the wife's role as the primary caregiver for the children, one of whom had severe disabilities.

The court had to determine whether the invested conditional share units should be considered as property or as a financial resource. It found that these units were financial resources because they could not be sold, transferred, or dealt with until they vested. The court also assessed the wife's claim for spousal maintenance, taking into account her role as the primary caregiver and the severe disabilities of the older child. Given that the wife had been out of paid employment since 2002, the court found that spousal maintenance was justified.

In its decision, the court ruled that the invested conditional share units were not property but rather financial resources. Consequently, they were included in the asset pool for division between the parties. Additionally, the court granted the wife spousal maintenance, considering her significant contributions to the family as the primary caregiver and her extended period out of the workforce. The final orders included the division of the asset pool and the granting of spousal maintenance to the wife.

Orders