DAWSON & DAWSON

[2012] FamCAFC 22

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DAWSON & DAWSON [2012] FamCAFC 22

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – where the Federal Magistrate provided that the property of the parties be divided 60 per cent/40 per cent in favour of the wife – where the wife seeks an order on appeal that the property of the parties be divided 85 per cent/15 per cent in her favour – where the grounds of appeal involve “weight” challenges – where the wife asserts that the Federal Magistrate gave too much “weight” to the contributions of the husband and too little “weight” to the contributions made by her – where the husband has had the sole care of the child since 2009 – where the wife complains that the Federal Magistrate failed to give adequate weight to the s 75(2) factors said to favour the wife namely, her “capacity to re-house herself, “the fact that she will never work” and her “very poor health” – where the Federal Magistrate exercised an undoubtedly broad discretion – where it has not been demonstrated that the Federal Magistrate erred in the exercise of his discretion – where there is no merit in any of the grounds of appeal – appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – where the Federal Magistrate dismissed the wife’s application for periodic and lump sum spousal maintenance – where the wife says that the Federal Magistrate erred in finding that she could not afford to purchase a unit and afford a small mortgage and further that the wife would and could live with her mother – where the wife asserts that the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to order lump sum maintenance by way of adding an extra 10 per cent to the wife’s overall entitlement to the net assets of the parties, and the husband pay that sum out of the amount he is due to receive pursuant to the orders for property settlement – where the complaint is that the Federal Magistrate dismissed the wife’s application for lump sum maintenance because the Federal Magistrate found the husband had no capacity to pay weekly spousal maintenance – where the wife’s case on lump sum spousal maintenance was not presented on any specific basis and where there was no evidence before the Federal Magistrate or submissions made justifying the wife receiving 10 per cent of the net asset pool by way of lump sum spousal maintenance – where the requirements of s 72 must still be satisfied – where the Federal Magistrate in considering whether the husband was reasonably able to maintain the wife took into account the evidence as to the payments that the husband would have to make out of the amount he was due to receive by way of property settlement – where it is significant to note that no splitting order was made and the husband was left with his superannuation because of the wife’s need for ready funds to meet her needs – where the husband…