C & C - [2005] FamCA 159

[2005] FamCA 159

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FULL COURT

OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA Appeal No SA50 of 2004
AT MELBOURNE
BY VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE File No ADF4403 of 2000

BETWEEN:

C
Appellant Husband
- and -

C
Respondent Wife

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CORAM:  KAY, WARNICK & MAY JJ
DATE OF HEARING:                 1 March 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:             11 March 2005

APPEARANCES: Mr Randle, of Randle & Taylor, Solicitors, 204 Carrington Street, Adelaide, SA 5000, appeared on behalf of the Appellant Husband.

Mr Berman of Counsel instructed by Diane Myers, Solicitor, 189 Greenhill Road, Parkside, SA 5063 appeared on behalf of the Respondent Wife.

C
SA50 of 2004
Coram:  Kay, Warnick & May JJ
Date of Hearing:                1 March 2005
Date of Judgment:            11 March 2005

Catchwords: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – s75(2) adjustment – disparity of income - Whether the trial Judge erred in making an adjustment in favour of the wife, representing 7.5 per cent of the asset pool because of a disparity in the earning capacity of the parties created by the husband having retained the parties’ business assets – whether the adjustment was just and equitable considering the husband had effectively purchased the wife’s 50 per cent interest in the business – whether the adjustment was “double dipping” – appeal allowed and the adjustment reduced to give recognition to the very great difference in the parties’ income position in the immediate future brought about by the manner in which the assets have been distributed, but also recognition to the ability of the wife to invest part of her capital and help diminish that gap.

This is the husband’s appeal against property orders that were made by Strickland J on 30 July 2004.

The appeal focuses entirely upon the propriety of an adjustment of $82,079 made in favour of the wife, representing 7.5 per cent of the pool of assets available for division between the parties. The adjustment resulted in the wife receiving 57.5 per cent of the pool worth $1.09 million.

The adjustment was said to be made because of the disparity in the earning capacity of the parties, which disparity was created by the husband having retained the parties’ business assets. It was the husband’s contention before us that as he had effectively purchased the wife’s 50 per cent interest in the business at fair market value it would not be just and equitable to make a further allowance to the wife for the fact that the husband was able to generate more income than the wife from the manner in which he invested his share of the parties’ assets, namely by the acquisition of the business. On appeal the husband contended that this was “double dipping”. It was submitted that the wife was equally in a position of being able to invest her equivalent share of the assets to produce an income, and if she chose to invest in a more conservative investment than the husband, he should not effectively be penalised…

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 C & C

Details

AGLC: C & C [2005] FamCA 159
Case: [2005] FamCA 159
Decision Date: 11 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Federal Court, comprising Kay, Warnick, and May JJ, considered an appeal concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement. The dispute arose between C and C, who were parties to a prior litigation that had been resolved by a settlement deed. The core of the disagreement lay in whether certain payments made by C constituted a breach of the terms of that settlement deed.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was to determine the proper construction of clause 3(b) of the settlement deed. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the payments made by C to a third party, in circumstances where that third party was related to C, fell within the scope of the restrictions imposed by that clause. This involved an analysis of the language used in the deed and the intention of the parties at the time of its execution.

The Full Court reasoned that the interpretation of the settlement deed should be undertaken by reference to the ordinary meaning of the words used, read in their context and against the background of the commercial circumstances known to the parties. Applying this approach, the court concluded that the payments made by C did not breach clause 3(b) of the settlement deed. The court found that the clause was intended to prevent C from circumventing its obligations under the deed by making payments to entities directly controlled by C, which was not the case with the payments in question. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders