Carmel-Fevia & Fevia (No. 3)

The Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between Ms Carmel-Fevia (the applicant wife) and Mr Fevia (the respondent husband). The core of the dispute involved the division of significant wealth accumulated by the husband, the wife's contributions primarily as a homemaker and parent during a relationship of less than seven years, and the provision for their two children. The court also addressed child support assessments.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate property settlement, considering the wife's contributions as a homemaker and parent to the parties' children and the husband's children from a previous marriage, and assessing whether any negative aspects of the wife's conduct, such as issues with alcohol, diminished her contributions. Additionally, the court was required to determine the quantum of child support, both periodic and non-periodic, and whether to depart from the administrative assessment.

The court adopted a "broad brush" approach, finding that while the wife's contributions were predominantly in the role of homemaker and parent, these contributions did not negate or significantly reduce her entitlement. The court noted that the husband's financial position was not contentious, with net assets of approximately $430 million at separation. The wife's conduct, including issues with alcohol, was considered but did not lead the court to find her evasive or untruthful, nor did it negate her contributions to the extent argued by the husband. The court also found that the husband did not leave the wife bereft of resources at separation, despite her claims to the contrary.

Ultimately, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $19,500,000 as a property settlement. Each party was to retain other property in their possession. The court also made specific orders regarding child support, departing from the administrative assessment to set a periodic rate of $39,000 per annum for both children, increasing annually with the Consumer Price Index. Further non-periodic child support was ordered, requiring the husband to cover all private education expenses, top-level private health insurance premiums, non-rebateable medical and dental expenses, reasonable sports and activity expenses, and reasonable mobile telephone expenses for the children. The court also deemed it reasonable to engage senior counsel and two counsel for the applicant.