Flynn & Hadley - [2022] FedCFamC2F 892

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Flynn & Hadley [2022] FedCFamC2F 892

File number(s): SYC 5827 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE CAMPBELL

Date of judgment: 7 July 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – property proceedings – orders altering existing property interests - meaning of defacto relationship - failure to provide full and frank disclosure - deliberately hidden or fabricated evidence - where the wife made greater initial contributions - negative contribution - proceeds of sale held in trust

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA, 75, 79, 90SM, 90SF)

Cases cited:
Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93-117

Chang v Su [2002] HCA Trans 549

Hickey v Hickey [2003] FamCA 395

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Weir and Weir (1993) FLC 92-338

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 174

Date of last submission/s: 17 March 2022

Date of hearing: 25 – 26 October 2021, 4 February 2022, 17 March 2022

Place: Wollongong

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Apelbaum

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Hobson

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Lo Schiavo

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Gray

ORDERS

SYC5827 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS FLYNN

Applicant

AND:
MR HADLEY

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CAMPBELL

DATE OF ORDER:

7 JULY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within 28 days of the date of these orders each party shall do all such things and execute all such documents and instruments as may be necessary to cause the wife be paid the sum of $937,483.25 from the monies held in trust by D Law Firm solicitors.
2.Within 28 days of the date of these orders each party do all such things and execute all such documents and instruments as may be necessary to cause the husband be paid the sum of $180,649.75 from the monies held in trust by D Law Firm solicitors.
3.In the event that, after the payments are made in accordance with orders 1 and 2 herein, monies remain held in trust by D Law Firm solicitors, then those remaining monies shall be paid as follows:
(a)seventy-five percent to the wife; and
(b)the balance to the husband.

4.The wife is declared to have the sole rights of ownership, as against the husband, in and to all other assets and financial resources currently in her possession or control.
5.The wife is declared to be solely liable, with respect to the husband, to all debts for which she is currently liable in her sole name.
6.The husband is declared to have the sole rights of ownership, as against the wife, in and to all other assets and financial resources currently in his possession or control.
7.The husband is declared to be solely liable, with respect to the wife, to all debts for which he is currently liable in his sole name.
8.In the event that a party refuses or fails to execute any document or instrument necessary to give effect to these orders within 14 days of a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Flynn & Hadley

Details

AGLC: Flynn & Hadley [2022] FedCFamC2F 892
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 892
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Flynn & Hadley [2022] FedCFamC2F 892 was a property settlement case involving the former de facto partners, Ms Flynn and Mr Hadley. The court was required to decide a range of issues, including the date when the de facto relationship commenced, the existing rights and entitlements of the parties, the contributions of each party to the relationship, and their future needs. The court found that the de facto relationship commenced in October 2011 when the husband moved into the wife’s home. The court found that the husband failed to provide full and frank disclosure and deliberately concealed information from the court, including the existence of an engine for one of the motor vehicles in dispute. The court also found that the wife made greater initial contributions and had made significant contributions in relation to the restoration of the property they shared. The court assessed the contributions of each party and found that the wife’s contributions were 75 per cent and the husband’s were 25 per cent. The court found that the husband’s failure to provide full and frank disclosure and his attempts to conceal information from the court justified no adjustment for future needs. The court ordered that the wife receive 75 per cent of the nett asset pool and the husband 25 per cent. The wife was ordered to receive $937,483.25 from the proceeds of sale of the property held in trust and the husband was ordered to receive $180,649.75. If there were any remaining monies in trust, the wife would receive 75 per cent and the husband 25 per cent.

Orders