Cook & Langford

In the case of Cook & Langford, the husband sought to appeal against the orders of the trial judge that the wife pay him $2 million and release him from any debt owing to any company controlled by the wife. The total property pool was over $66 million, and the husband argued that the contribution assessment was manifestly unjust, particularly as he had been bankrupt at the commencement of their cohabitation, and the wife had assets of approximately $14.5 million at that time. The husband also argued that the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to his contributions and the reasons given for the contribution finding were inadequate.

The court considered whether the trial judge erred in assessing the husband's contribution-based entitlement at $1 million and in calculating his contribution entitlement as a lump sum rather than as a percentage of the total property pool. The court held that the trial judge gave adequate reasons and there was no error in the assessment of the husband's contributions. The trial judge evaluated the parties' respective contributions pre-cohabitation, during cohabitation and post-separation. The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of the husband's contributions. The court also found that the trial judge gave adequate reasons for the contribution assessment and there was no error in calculating the contribution entitlement as a lump sum.

The court further considered whether the trial judge erred in the s 75(2) adjustment, whether the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the disparity in the parties' financial positions, the husband's uncontested medical evidence, asserted restricted future earning capacity and the parties' standard of living during cohabitation and marriage. The court held that the trial judge's reasons disclosed a careful examination of all of the relevant factors and there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of the s 75(2) factors. The court also found that there was no merit in the husband's argument that the adjustment of assets received was manifestly unjust and inequitable.

Lastly, the court considered the wife's application for costs, which was dismissed as the husband was wholly unsuccessful in his appeal. The court set a timetable for the filing of written submissions in respect of the costs of the appeal. The court dismissed the husband's appeal and the wife's Notice of Contention. The court also granted the parties liberty to make an application for costs incurred by them in relation to the appeal.