Brown & Brown - [2005] FamCA 1165

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT No. SYF 9777 of 1992

IN THE MATTER OF:	BROWN	Applicant Wife
AND	BROWN	Respondent Husband

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CORAM:	O’Ryan J
DATE OF HEARING:	30 November, 1, 2, 3 and 10 December 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 December 2005

APPEARANCES:

Mr Richardson

Mr Campton

Of Senior Counsel and

Of Counsel (instructed by The Argyle Partnership, Solicitors, DX 876 Sydney) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Wife.

Mr Brereton

Mr Livingstone

Of Senior Counsel and

Of Counsel (instructed by Adrian Twigg & Co, Solicitors, DX 267 Sydney) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Husband.

Introduction

This is an exceptional case about spouse maintenance, child support and arrears of adult child maintenance. Ms Brown is seeking lump sum or periodic spouse maintenance, child support and adult child maintenance. Mr Brown opposes the relief sought by the wife. The proceedings were commenced by application filed on 9 April 2002. The facts of this case are unusual. They are also extensive.
The wife seeks that the husband pay $4,000,000 lump sum spouse maintenance. In the alternative the wife seeks that the husband pay periodic maintenance of $20,000 per calendar month as and from 1 May 2002 to be paid as to amounts accrued to date totalling $620,000 within 14 days and as to future periodic amounts the first payment within 7 days. The wife also seeks that the periodic spouse maintenance be varied in each year in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.
The husband contends that if an order for spouse maintenance is made then it should be for payment of a periodic amount of $1,000 per week.
In relation to child maintenance the wife sought pursuant to s 98(1) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act1989 (Cth) that a child support agreement entered into between the parties dated 8 December 1992 be varied so that the husband pay direct to the wife child support for the child of the marriage in the sum of $5,837 per month the first payment to be made as and from 15 April 2002 and monthly thereafter until the child attained the age of 18 years. During final submissions Senior Counsel for the wife filed a minute of orders in which was sought pursuant to s 115(c) and s 117(2) of the Assessment Act that there be a departure from administrative child support issued by the Child Support Agency for the periods 1 December 2001 until 28 February 2003 and 1 March 2003 until 1 June 2003 and in the alternative an order pursuant to s 66G Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for the period 15 April 2002 until 2 June 2003.
The wife seeks that the husband pay arrears of adult child maintenance for the period from 3 June 2003 until July 2004 in the sum of $37,102.02.
By way of enforcement of the orders for maintenance the wife seeks that the husband’s present wife Ms B Brown be joined as a party…

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 Brown & Brown

Details

AGLC: Brown & Brown [2005] FamCA 1165
Case: [2005] FamCA 1165
Decision Date: 5 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Brown & Brown*, O’Ryan J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between the parties concerning property settlement. The specific nature of the property in dispute and the precise circumstances of the parties' separation were not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate division of the parties' assets and liabilities under the *Family Law Act 1975*. This required the court to consider various factors, including the financial contributions of each party, their non-financial contributions, their future needs, and any other relevant circumstances to achieve a just and equitable outcome.

O’Ryan J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, which mandates a consideration of the parties' contributions, both financial and non-financial, to the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of the property of the marriage, as well as their roles as homemaker and parent. The court also had to assess the future needs of each party, taking into account factors such as age, health, income earning capacity, and the care of any children. The ultimate aim was to determine a division that was just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Orders