Crampton and Robinson (No. 2)

This matter concerned financial adjustment proceedings between a husband and wife, heard in the Family Court of Australia. The primary dispute revolved around the husband's contention that certain expenditures by the wife, specifically legal fees incurred in the proceedings and a notional occupation fee for the former matrimonial home, should be added back into the pool of matrimonial assets. Conversely, the wife sought to have the husband's legal fees paid from his income in 2010 added back.

The court was required to determine whether the wife's legal fees paid from her income after the commencement of proceedings should be added back to the asset pool, and similarly, whether the husband's legal fees paid from his income in 2010 should be added back. Additionally, the court had to consider the husband's claim for an occupation fee to be paid by the wife for her continued residence in the former matrimonial home, calculated by reference to mortgage payments that were not made. Finally, the court needed to assess the husband's contention that Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) awarded to the wife should be treated as a financial resource.

The court rejected the husband's submission to add back the wife's legal fees, finding they were a legitimate expense paid from her income after proceedings commenced. For the same reason, the court endorsed the husband's submission that his own legal fees paid from income in 2010 should not be added back. The husband's claim for an occupation fee was also rejected, as the court considered it artificial to add back a notional figure and stated that the issue of mortgage payments was more appropriately dealt with in the context of assessing the parties' respective contributions between separation and the hearing. The court agreed with the husband that the wife's RSUs should be considered a financial resource, acknowledging they would be received as taxable additions to her income. The court then calculated the net asset pool, totalling $1,431,879, with the husband's interest at $847,612 and the wife's at $584,267. The court noted the parties were separated tenants in common of the former matrimonial home, with the wife residing there, supporting a child, and maintaining the home, while the husband was unable to contribute financially. The court indicated a need for an alteration of interests to reflect new arrangements and future needs, considering both contributions and future requirements.