Farnham & Farnham

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Farnham & Farnham revolves around a dispute between the parties regarding property settlement. The main issues pertain to whether the Court should consider the Heads of Agreement, whether a property adjustment order should be made under section 79, and the ownership of a specific property located at B Street, Town C. The Wife, who largely testified in line with her affidavit, was deemed credible by the Court. She alleged that the Husband intended to prolong the proceedings, aiming for her to receive nothing. The Husband, who was cross-examined by Ms Brown, admitted to reneging on the Heads of Agreement and his intention to keep the property despite an offer that exceeded its market value by nearly $100,000. The Court found the Husband’s conduct, particularly in relation to the valuation of the B Street, Town C property, to be problematic. The Wife's failure to file her valuation evidence and the Husband's late submission of his valuation evidence were attributed to this conduct.

The legal issues addressed by the Court included the relevance of the Heads of Agreement, the appropriateness of a property adjustment order, and the allocation of the B Street, Town C property. The Court considered the Wife's primary role in child care during the relationship, which continued until May 2021 for all children except X. The Court concluded that both parties made equal financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage over the 21-year period, despite the Husband's failure to make mortgage repayments for nearly two years. Regarding the property adjustment, the Court noted that neither party's earning capacity would be adversely affected by any order made. The Wife's age, health issues, and the Husband's shoulder injuries were considered under section 75(2)(a) and (b), respectively, with neither party presenting medical evidence of incapacity for employment.

The Court ultimately ruled that the Wife was primarily responsible for the care of the children during the marriage, a role that persisted until May 2021, except for child X. It determined that the parties made equal contributions to the marriage, both financially and non-financially, despite the Husband's cessation of mortgage repayments. In relation to the property adjustment, the Court concluded that neither party's earning capacity would be affected. The Court also considered the Wife's age, health issues, and the Husband's shoulder injuries but found no evidence of incapacity for employment. The final orders will address the property adjustment and the ownership of the B Street, Town C property, taking into account the Husband’s conduct and the Wife’s concerns regarding financial advantage.