Blaxland & Blaxland

Case [2023] FedCFamC1F 240


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Blaxland & Blaxland [2023] FedCFamC1F 240

File number: LNC 187 of 2021
Judgment of: MCGUIRE J
Date of judgment: 6 April 2023
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY – When property pool is extensive in content and of substantial value – Long marriage – Where parties agree equal contributions and no adjustments for s 79(4)(d)-(g) considerations – Dispute as to “add-backs” to the pool – Dispute as to distribution of assets
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 75(2), 79(2) and 79(4)(b)-(g)
Cases cited:

AJO & GRO (2005) FLC 93-218

Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898

R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Townsend & Townsend (1995) FLC 92-569

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 65
Date of last submissions: Written submissions 27 February 2023
Date of hearing: 7, 8, 9 and 11 March 2022 and 9, 10 and 11 January 2023
Place: Launceston delivered in Hobart
Counsel for the Applicant: Andrea Trezise
Solicitor for the Applicant: Andrea Trezise Barrister & Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hall
Solicitor for the Respondent: John Munro & Associates

ORDERS

LNC 187 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS BLAXLAND

Applicant

AND:

MR BLAXLAND

Respondent

order made by:

MCGUIRE J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 April 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.For the purpose of these orders IT IS DECLARED THAT:

(a)the parties’ matrimonial assets and liabilities are set out in “Annexure A” hereto (“the Balance Sheet/Asset Distribution Schedule”);

(b)the assets are valued as stated in the Balance Sheet/Asset Distribution Schedule;

(c)the amounts owed at items 96 to 102 of the Balance Sheet/Asset Distribution Schedule may fluctuate prior to the Settlement Date, subject to the injunction against drawdowns set out in Order 4(b) below;

(d)Orders 2 and 3 of the Orders of 26 March 2021 and Order 8 of the Orders of 10 January 2023 (as amended) remain in full force and effect for the period up to and concluding upon the Settlement Date as later defined herein and then discharged, with liabilities of the types described in those orders that fell due and payable on or before the Settlement date to remain a liability of and be paid by B Pty Ltd.

2.Within 60 days of the date of these orders (“the Settlement Date”):

(a)Mr Blaxland (“the husband”) do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to transfer to Ms Blaxland (“the wife”) all his right, title and interest in items numbered 4 to 42 of the Balance Sheet/Asset Distribution Schedule;

(b)the wife do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to transfer to the husband all her right, title and interest in items numbered 43 to 73 of the Balance Sheet/Asset Distribution Schedule; and

(c)the wife pay to the husband the sum of $1,334,405 (“the Settlement Payment”).

3.Contemporaneously with the performance…

Continue reading Blaxland & Blaxland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Blaxland & Blaxland [2023] FedCFamC1F 240
Case
[2023] FedCFamC1F 240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the husband and wife regarding the amount to be added back to the property for the legal costs already paid by the wife. The husband and wife had been married for approximately 32 years and had three adult children. They owned a substantial amount of property, with many of the properties developed and leased to tenants. The court had to decide on the legal issues surrounding the calculation of the amount to be added back to the property for the legal costs already paid by the wife. The court had to consider whether the amount to be added back was fair and equitable, taking into account the contributions made by each party to the marriage and the assets they had accumulated during the marriage.

The court found that it was just and equitable to alter the property interests of the parties. The court found that the wife had made significant contributions to the marriage, both financially and in terms of managing the family's finances. The court also found that the husband had made significant contributions to the marriage, both in terms of his work on the construction side of the business and his contributions to the family. The court found that the amount to be added back to the property for the legal costs already paid by the wife should be based on the contributions made by each party to the marriage and the assets they had accumulated during the marriage. The court found that the wife's contributions to the marriage were significant and that the amount to be added back to the property should reflect those contributions.

The court ordered that the amount to be added back to the property for the legal costs already paid by the wife should be determined by the contributions made by each party to the marriage and the assets they had accumulated during the marriage. The court ordered that the amount to be added back should be calculated by taking into account the value of the assets owned by the parties at the time of the separation, as well as the contributions made by each party to the acquisition of those assets. The court also ordered that the amount to be added back should be reduced by any amounts paid by the wife for her legal costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

There is dispute as to the amount to be “added-back” to the property for the legal costs already paid by the wife. BACKGROUND The husband is 52 years of age and the wife is 51 years. They commenced cohabitation in 1989 and married in 1991. Separation occurred on 8 January 2021. There are three adult children of the marriage. The primary business operated by the parties is property development. On my calculations, they currently own some 47 parcels of land with many of the properties developed and let to tenants. Properties at L Street, Suburb F and BC Street, Suburb LL remain in the development stage. The property development arm of the business operates through a company, B Investments. A second company, B Proprietary Limited, is trustee for a family trust and is concerned with the considerable rental arm of the business. There is no indication that either of the parties are otherwise than in reasonable health. Again, no argument is mounted by either party in respect of any adjustments on consideration of the factors under section 75(2) of the Act. It is generally agreed between the parties that the husband took the responsibility for the construction side of the business whilst the wife assumed the financial management role although with some intermingling of the roles. RELEVANT LAW The power for the Court to alter the interests of parties in property is provided at section 79 of the Act. “Property” includes assets and liabilities with amendments to the Act providing that “superannuation, may be treated as property”. The discretion in the Court to alter property interests is a broad one limited only by the Statute itself. In R v Watson: Ex parte Armstrong[1] the High Court observed: …The judge called upon to decide proceedings of that kind is not entitled to do what has been described as “palm tree justice”. No doubt he is given a wide discretion, but he must exercise it in accordance with legal principles, including the principles which the Act itself lays down…[1] (1976) 136 CLR 248 at 257. Section 79(2) of the Act provides:The court shall not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the order. Following the decision of the High Court in Standford & Standford[2] a renewed focus has been placed on this subsection with the Court emphasising a requirement for a separate, independent and discrete determination by the Court as to whether it be just and equitable in the particular circumstances to make any order altering the property interests of the parties. Importantly, that consideration is not to be simply conflated with a consideration of contributions at section 79(4).[2] (2012) 247 CLR 108. The consideration at section 79(2) is not a difficult one here where the parties had a long relationship and it is clear that their marriage has broken down. There are substantial assets most of which are owned under company structures of which the parties themselves are the directors and shareholders. Where their finances are inherently intertwined, I can easily find that it is just and equitable to enter into a consideration of altering the parties’ property interests.

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.