FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Blaise & Blaise [2023] FedCFamC1F 135
File number: MLC 9534 of 2020 Judgment of: MCNAB J Date of judgment: 3 March 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Orders made on an undefended basis – Where there was inadequate disclosure by one of the parties – Where there is an adjustment for lack of disclosure Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79 Cases cited: Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93–117; (2002) 29 Fam LR 406 Dickons & Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244; [2012] FamCAFC 154
Dovgan & Dovgan [2021] FamCA 306
Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143
Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898; [2019] FamCAFC 78
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52
Weir v Weir (1993) FLC 92-338; (1992) 16 FamCA 69
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 43 Date of hearing: 1 – 3 March 2023 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Dunlop Solicitor for the Applicant: Kalus Kenny Intelex Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance ORDERS
MLC 9534 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS BLAISE
Applicant
AND: MR BLAISE
Respondent
order made by:
MCNAB J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 MARCH 2023
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESE ORDERS:
A.B Street means the real property located at and known as B Street, C Town in the State of New South Wales.
B.The water rights means:
(a)diversion entitlement licence number … (… megalitres of high security water);
(b)diversion entitlement licence number … (… megalitres of general security water);
C.The valuation report means the affidavit of Mr D filed in this proceeding and sealed 23 February 2023.
D.The Plant and Equipment means the plant, machinery, equipment and items referred to at part 5 of annexure "MD-3" and part 5 of annexure "MD-4" of the valuation report.
E.E Pty Ltd means the entity E Pty Ltd
F.F Family Trust means the family trust established by Deed dated early 2017
G.G Pty Ltd means the entity G Pty Ltd
H.H Pty Ltd means the entity H Pty Ltd.
I.J Pty Ltd means the entity J Pty Ltd
J.Blaise Family Trust means the Blaise Family Trust established by Deed dated early 2007
K.K Pty Ltd means the entity K Pty Ltd
L.L Pty Ltd means the entity L Pty Ltd
M.Superannuation Fund 1 means the Blaise self-managed superannuation fund
N.M Pty Ltd means the entity M Pty Ltd
O.N Pty Ltd means the entity N Pty Ltd
P.O Investments Family Trust means the O Investments Family Trust established by Deed dated late 2019
Q.Blaise business interests means and comprises:
(a)E Pty Ltd
(b)F Family Trust
(c)H Pty Ltd
(d)J Pty Ltd
(e)Blaise Family Trust
(f)K Pty Ltd
(g)L Pty Ltd
R.ANZ Mortgage means the ANZ Bank liability styled in account number ending …68 secured by registered mortgage over B Street dealing number ….
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.The Husband…
Continue reading Blaise & Blaise
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Blaise & Blaise [2023] FedCFamC1F 135
- Case
- [2023] FedCFamC1F 135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the contributions made by both parties and their financial and other contributions to the relationship. The court found that the wife had worked full-time as a finance professional before the birth of the first child, and was a full-time homemaker and carer for the children until early 2017. The husband was working for his family-run business prior to the parties purchasing a 25 per cent interest in a company, R Pty Ltd, in 2009 for $275,000. The court also considered the contributions made by both parties in the period subsequent to their separation.
The court found that it was just and equitable to make a property adjustment in the circumstances where the parties had separated. The court assessed the nature and quality of the parties' contributions throughout the entirety of their relationship together with their contributions in the period subsequent to their separation. The court found that the asset pool was as outlined by the wife, and that the wife had received $200,000 and the husband had received $100,000 from the proceeds of a property at P Street. The balance of the proceeds of the sale of that property was over $600,000.
The court made an order for the division of the parties' property in accordance with section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court found that the wife was entitled to receive a larger share of the property than the husband, taking into account the contributions made by both parties and the impact of future events on either party. The court made an order for the wife to receive $400,000 and the husband to receive $100,000 from the balance of the proceeds of the sale of the property at P Street. The court also made orders for the division of other assets and liabilities of the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
I have also had regard to the draft orders that have been provided to the Court this day. The Court has also had regard to the trial affidavit filed by the husband and the minute of orders he sought the Court to make. CONSIDERATION In respect to the parties' dispute regarding the division of property in these proceedings, the court has regard to s79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The High Court in Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 ("Stanford"), at [35] confirmed that before an order is made adjusting the parties property the court is required to make a determination that it is just and equitable to do so. That determination is to be made, however, not as a discrete or preliminary issue but requires the Court to consider the matters set out in section 79(4) of the Act. In the leading case of Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143, the Full Court held at [39] that, in considering the matters set out in section 79 (4) of the Act the preferred approach was to adhere to the following four steps:(1)Identify and determine the value of the asset pool of the parties as at the date of the hearing (this necessarily involves identifying both the assets and liabilities);(2)Identify and assess each of the parties' financial and other contributions up until the date of the hearing (this can include the financial contributions made before, during and after the marriage);(3)Assess how future and other events may have a financial impact on either of the parties, such as their age and state of health and their income and property or financial resources (known as the s 75(2) factors); and(4)Step back and examine this formula-based reasoning against the history of the marriage, intangible considerations and other contingencies so as to consider whether the outcome represents a just and equitable result.Is it just and equitable to make a property adjustment The parties are in agreement that in the circumstances where the parties have separated, it is just and equitable for the court to make an adjustment to the parties’ property interests.BALANCE SHEET I find that the asset pool is per wife’s case outline being: The Court is required to make an assessment of the nature and the quality of the parties' contributions throughout the entirety of their relationship together with their contributions in the period subsequent to their separation (Dickons & Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244; [2012] FamCAFC 154, [14] (Bryant CJ, Faulks DCJ, Murphy J); Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898; [2019] FamCAFC 78, [61] (Alstergren CJ, Ryan and Aldridge JJ). See also Dovgan & Dovgan [2021] FamCA 306, [347] (Harper J)). Prior to the birth of the first child, the wife worked full-time as a finance professional and was a full-time home maker and carer for the children until early 2017 at which time she commenced work for the parties' business. The wife gave evidence that the husband was working for his family-run business prior to the parties purchasing a 25 per cent interest in a company R Pty Ltd (R Pty Ltd), in 2009 for $275,000. The parties also jointly purchased the family home for $249,000 in mid-2005 of which the husband contributed $100,000 and the balance was from a bank loan. The parties purchased and sold a series of properties in the interim period, and the proceeds of a property at P Street was partially distributed via part-property settlement in early 2022 with the wife receiving $200,000 and the husband receiving $100,000. The balance of the proceeds of the sale of that property is over $600,000.