Legal Research
Cases
Bhatt & Solanki

Bhatt & Solanki

Case [2023] FedCFamC2F 690 15 June 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Bhatt & Solanki [2023] FedCFamC2F 690

File number(s): PAC 5852 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE MURDOCH

Date of judgment: 15 June 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where the parties’ were married for 10 years – where there are no children of the marriage – where the husband asserts he made overwhelming financial and non-financial contributions throughout the marriage and seeks that items be notionally added back to the property pool –where the wife asserts that her contributions were made significantly more arduous as a result of the husband’s conduct – where the wife’s Kennon claim is not substantiated – contributions assessed as equal - where there is a significant disparity in the income of husband and the wife – orders made adjusting the overall property of the parties as 52.5 percent to the wife and 47.5 percent to the husband.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 75(2)(o), 79, 79(4)(d)-(g)

Cases cited:
AJO & GRO [2005] FamCA 195

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116

Edgehill & Edgehill [2007] FamCA 1102

Fields & Smith [2015] FamCAFC 57

Gollings & Scott [2007] FamCA 397

Hickey v Hickey & Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (Intervener) [2003] FamCA 395

Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25

Kessey & Kessey [1994] FamCA 162

Kowaliw and Kowaliw [1981] FamCA 70

NHC & RCH [2004] FamCA 633

Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17

Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52

Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 82

Date of hearing: 29 – 31 May 2023

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Maddox

Solicitor for the Applicant: John & Co Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Di Lizia

Solicitor for the Respondent: JC Legal Practice

Table of Corrections

19 June 2023 In the Catchwords “55 percent to the wife and 45 percent to the husband” has been corrected to show “52.5 percent to the wife and 47.5 percent to the husband”.
ORDERS

PAC 5852 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS BHATT

Applicant

AND:
MR SOLANKI

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE MURDOCH

DATE OF ORDER:

15 June 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Cash payment to wife
1.That within 42 days the husband pay to the wife the sum of $260,389.

Suburb C Property
2.That contemporaneously with the husband’s compliance with Order 1 above the wife shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to transfer to the husband all her right, title and interest in the property situated at and known as B Street, Suburb C, NSW (“the Suburb C Property”) at the husband’s sole expense and cost.
3.That contemporaneously with the transfer of the Suburb C Property pursuant to Order 2 above the parties shall do all such acts and things and sign all documents necessary to discharge the loan secured by way of mortgage against the title of the Suburb C Property (“the Suburb C mortgage”) at the…

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 Bhatt & Solanki

Details

AGLC: Bhatt & Solanki [2023] FedCFamC2F 690
Case: [2023] FedCFamC2F 690
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved proceedings for alteration of property interests pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The parties were married in 2008 in Country Y and separated on 31 December 2018. They have no children. The wife sought an adjustment in her favour on the basis that her contributions were made more onerous as a result of the husband’s perpetration of family violence. The court was required to assess the contributions made by the parties, including financial and non-financial contributions, and consider whether there should be any further adjustment to the property pool on account of the matters set out in section 79(4)(d)-(g) of the Act. The court found that the wife’s contributions were made more arduous as a result of the husband’s conduct but was not satisfied that the wife’s evidence was able to ground an inferential finding in this regard. The court assessed the parties’ contributions to the property pool as equal. It was found that an adjustment should be made to the wife of 2.5 per cent on account of the disparity in the parties’ income. The court ordered that the husband pay to the wife the sum of $260,389. The wife will transfer her interest in the Suburb C property to the husband, and the husband will transfer his interest in the Suburb E property to the wife. The parties will sell the jointly held land in Country Y, and the net proceeds will be divided between them in the same proportion as the overall adjustment of the parties’ property. The wife will retain the real property in Country Y in her sole name. The boat and trailer registered in the husband’s name will be sold, and the proceeds of sale will be divided between the parties in the same proportion as the overall adjustment of the parties’ property. Each party otherwise retains all items of property and superannuation property in their power, possession, and control.

Orders