Chambers and Chambers

[2007] FMCAfam 223

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHAMBERS & CHAMBERS [2007] FMCAfam 223

FAMILY LAW – Property – contribution throughout the marriage – percentage split – periods of separation – assets introduced.

Family Law Act
Evidence Act

Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143
Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92-338

Applicant: BARRY WINFIELD CHAMBERS

Respondent: ROBYN MARION CHAMBERS

File number: BRM5919 of 2004

Judgment of: Burnett FM

Hearing date: 15 March 2007

Date of last submission: 15 March 2007

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 17 September 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr O’Neill

Solicitors for the Applicant: Stacks Grays Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Burridge

Solicitors for the Respondent: Butts & Barkley

ORDERS

1. That there be judgment for the Applicant against the Respondent in the sum of $182,348.35.

2. That the matter be adjourned to hear the parties on ancillary orders.

3. That costs be reserved.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRM5919 of 2004

BARRY WINFIELD CHAMBERS

Applicant

And

ROBYN MARION CHAMBERS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. In this proceeding the Applicant Barry Winfield Chambers (the Applicant) seeks property settlement orders pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act against the Respondent Robyn Marion Chambers (the Respondent).

Background

1. The Applicant is a divorced man now aged 65 (date of birth 13 March 1941).  The Respondent is a divorced woman aged 54 (date of birth 13 August 1952).  The Applicant and Respondent were married on or about 24 October 1981 and separated in early 2004.  The precise date of separation is not entirely clear from the material. 

2. Although there appears to have been a period of separation in 1987 and another period in 2000 the parties otherwise lived continuously together between 1981 and 2004.

3. Both parties worked throughout the term of the relationship.  The Applicant was employed in various occupations within the hospitality industry.   He is now retired.  The Respondent has been employed and/or otherwise conducted business as a hairdresser.  She continues to do so.

4. The parties relocated from New South Wales to Queensland and in 2000 the Applicant unsuccessfully sought employment in direct marketing and real estate.  At one stage he was fully employed building the parties’ new house situate at Underwood.  The Applicant ultimately returned to employment in the hospitality industry before finally retiring in June 2002.

5. There were two children to the marriage.  Both are now aged over 18 and neither the Applicant or Respondent claim them as relevant to the resolution of property settlement procedures. 

6. This matter had previously been heard and determined at first instance.  However an appeal against that decision was successful and a retrial was ordered.  I have been careful not to examine either the judgment at first instance or the judgment or record of appeal.  My deliberations in this proceeding are based solely on the evidence placed before me at the trial and submissions (both oral and written) made by the parties.

7. The principal issues in dispute between the parties concern:

   a)identification of the property comprising the property pool;

   b)valuation of certain assets within…