G and G
[2000] FMCAfam 70
•20 November 2000
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| G & G | [2000] FMCA fam 70 |
| MAINTENANCE OF SPOUSE – Property – Contributions – Future needs – Just and equitable |
| Applicant: | J M G |
| Respondent: | K G G |
| File No: | ZE 0322 of 2000 |
| Delivered on: | 20 November 2000 |
| Delivered at: | Dandenong |
| Hearing Date: | 3 November 2000 |
| Judgment of: | Hartnett FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Sweeney |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Spicer |
ORDERS
An Order was made on 3 November 2000 by consent such that pursuant to Section 44(3) of the Family Law Act1975 leave was granted to the wife to institute proceedings as contained in the application filed on 16 March 2000. More than twelve months had expired since the day on which the Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage had become Absolute.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DANDENONG |
ZE0322 of 2001
| J M G |
Applicant
And
| K G G |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Transfer
This matter came before the Federal Magistrates Court on
3 November 2000 having been transferred by the Family Court of Australia on 7 September 2000 for this Court to hear and determine property proceedings between the parties together with the wife’s spousal maintenance application.
Orders by consent
An Order was made on 3 November 2000 by consent such that pursuant to Section 44(3) of the Family Law Act1975 leave was granted to the wife to institute proceedings as contained in the application filed on 16 March 2000. More than twelve months had expired since the day on which the Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage had become Absolute.
Wife’s application
The wife relied upon her Form 7 Application filed on 16 March 2000 together with her Affidavit filed on 27 October 2000 and her Financial Statement filed 27 October 2000.
Specifically the wife sought that the husband pay to her by way of part property settlement a sum equivalent to seventy percent of the value of the matrimonial assets. In addition, she sought an adjournment of the question of her entitlement to the husband’s superannuation benefits; (and associated orders); and pending the further hearing of her application that the husband pay to her the sum of $200.00 per week by way of spousal maintenance. As at 30 June 2000 the husband’s superannuation entitlements amounted to $308,356.14 and his long-service leave entitlements, which exceeded 12 months, were valued in excess of $60,000.
The application for final orders did not define the matrimonial assets.
Husband’s response
The husband in Response filed on 18 April 2000 sought that the wife’s Application be dismissed and that he pay to the wife an amount equivalent to sixty percent of the net asset pool, he retaining forty percent excluding his superannuation. His proposal with respect to his superannuation benefits was contained in paragraph (3) of the final orders sought by him and specifically did not contain an application for adjournment of that part of the application.
“Net asset pool” was not defined.
The husband relied upon his Affidavit filed on 30 October 2000 and his Financial Statement filed the same day.
Background
The husband was born on 15 September 1954 and is now aged
46 years. The wife was born on 10 February 1954 and is now also aged 46 years. The parties married in Mt. Dandenong in March 1981 and separation occurred on 12 September 1997. The parties had commenced to reside together in 1980 and their cohabitation period was one of approximately 17½ years. A Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage became Absolute on 11 March 1999.
There are two children of the marriage, namely C D G born on 6 May 1982 who is now aged 18 years and R J G born on 5 September 1984 who is now aged 16 years. Both children reside with the husband and have contact with their Mother as agreed. Both children have resided with their Father since separation some 3 years ago. No payments of child support has been made in that period. The elder son is now working in a full-time capacity and pays board to his Father and the younger son is in Year 9 at H Christian College at N.
Since separation the husband has continued to reside in the former matrimonial home known as and situated at 21 M Avenue, H P, in the State of Victoria (herein afterwards referred to as the “real property”). He is employed as a Technical Specialist with T and is in receipt of income for the year ended 30 June 2000 of $71,464.00 per annum.
The Wife is residing in rental accommodation known as and situate at Flat 1, 13 A Street, C in the State of Victoria and she is in receipt of unemployment benefits. In addition, she receives approximately $80.00 from her part-time employment as a newspaper vendor. During the 1999 year and the year 2000 the wife operated a Classic Account with the Bank of Melbourne and a Basic Account. Both those accounts from the documents tendered in evidence were in surplus around the time of the making of the spousal maintenance order in April 2000 the wife having deposited in her Classic Account the sum of $1,285.01. At the same time she had approximately $200.00 in her Basic Account. To accumulate any savings since separation has required the wife to live extremely frugally. The Wife is also in receipt of periodic spousal maintenance in the sum of $200.00 per week payable by the husband pursuant to an Order made in the Family Court of Australia at Dandenong on 18 April 2000 by consent. Payment of that periodic amount commenced on 21 April 2000 and is currently continuing.
Evidence
Findings of fact on disputed issues are made on the balance of probabilities. In these reasons statements of fact should be taken as findings of fact.
Immediately following separation the Wife took up residence in a caravan park. She remained there for six months at a rental of $120.00 per week until in or about March 1998 moving into her current rental premises in relation to which she pays $145.00 per week by way of rental. The husband has remained in occupation of the former matrimonial home and paid the mortgage with respect to it of $75.00 per week together with the rates and taxes of approximately $17.00 per week. The husband has accommodated the parties two sons since separation which is now some 3 years without the provision of child support payments directly from the wife. However the wife has not been in a position to provide necessary support for herself let alone that of the parties two sons in this period. By her vacating of the matrimonial home and leaving of the contents and motor vehicle for the benefit of the husband and children she has however made indirect provision for the support of her sons in the ongoing availability to them of their home, its contents and a form of transportation. The furniture which the wife currently has in her possession has in the main been purchased second hand and post-separation.
The two sons of the parties have remained living with their father with some weekly evening contact with their Mother and very rare overnight stays by the younger son. In large part, the husband has not only financially provided for the boys but he has emotionally provided for them, their contact with their Mother being very minimal. It is not suggested that this is as a result of any action or inaction of the husband’s.
Both the husband and wife impressed as honest witnesses who endeavoured (in the witness box) to give straightforward accounts of themselves and their financial circumstances. I accept that the husband did have savings of approximately $6,000 at the commencement of cohabitation which he applied to the purchase of the real property. He had also a motor vehicle and the wife had some crockery items and her personal belongings. This was a long marriage however, and both parties contributed in their respective roles, the husband being in full-time employment for the entire duration of the marriage and the wife being employed for a period of time before ceasing shortly before the birth of the parties first child, C. She then became a full-time home-maker, a role which she continued to meet for the remainder of the marriage which included the subsequent birth and rearing of the parties second son.
At the commencement of the proceedings I was handed an Aide Memoire by Counsel for the wife as to the assets and liabilities of the parties. Both Counsel addressed me as to it:
a)There was disagreement between the husband and wife as to the valuation of the 1992 Ford motor vehicle, the wife indicating the vehicle to have a value of $9,200.00 and the husband believing it’s value to be currently $4,060.00. There was no expert evidence placed before me. Counsel for the husband initially proposed the husband could sell the vehicle and it’s price be determined in that manner. In closing however it appeared that the husband was disinclined to sell the vehicle and he urged upon the Court to find that it’s value was as asserted by him, namely $4,060.00. The wife adopted her valuation from an earlier financial statement of the husband sworn on 15 August 2000 (only some 2½ months earlier ) that the value was $9,200.00. In his Financial Statement on which he relies and which is sworn on 30 October 2000 the husband asserts the vehicle to have reduced in value to the sum of $4,060.00. In addition, the husband gave evidence that the vehicle has done 280,000km and that he now believes he overvalued it on an earlier occasion;
b)There was a dispute as to what assets could be considered as assets acquired during the marriage and contributed to by one or either or both parties and assets acquired post-separation;
c)Further, there was a dispute as to the inclusion or exclusion of a 12 month interest free Avco Loan in the sum of $3,195.00. The husband gave evidence that the loan was applied to re-spray and repair the roof of the real property and that it was a liability which should be taken into account. The real property at H P is registered in the joint names of the parties and has a current value of approximately $90,000.00. It is encumbered by mortgage to the Bank of Melbourne in the sum of approximately $3,270.00 leaving an equity of $86,730.00. The husband’s case was that this amount should be reduced by a further $3,195.00;
d)The husband conceded that he has the majority of the furniture and household items and the wife upon leaving took only her personal effects and some kitchen utensils. He continues to depose to the value of those household effects being approximately $10,000 which is a value conceded by the wife. Those household effects have been made available by the wife for use by the husband and their two sons in the three years since separation;
e)The husband has a Life Insurance Policy with Mercantile Mutual which has a current surrender value of $20,000. He has made contributions to the policy since separation of $29.00 per week. At separation the surrender value of the policy was $17,428.00;
f)The husband has an MLC Savings Plan No. 68650462 with a cash value of $9,875.00 as at 31 December 1999, and the retention of this savings plan requires a regular contribution of $23.79 per fortnight which has been met by the husband since separation. The savings plan provides additional death cover wherein the life insured is R J G and C D G and the sum insured for each of the said boys is $100,000. The policy owner is the husband. This savings plan was not referred to by the husband in his Affidavit nor did he make any reference to it in his Financial Statement sworn as recently as 30 October 2000. This is rather curious and the husband’s evidence as to it is that he simply overlooked it. As I say, he impressed as an honest witness but I doubt in this matter that he overlooked his interest in this Savings Plan and find the wife has been put to the task of discovering same;
g)The husband gave evidence that shortly after separation he acquired a Telstra Share Portfolio which has a current value of $16,044.00 together with a further share holding of Telstra 2 shares with a current value of $1,200.00. The first shares acquired by the husband number 2,500 all of which he still retains. The husband’s evidence was that the first number of shares were purchased approximately 2 months after separation being 2,000 shares purchased on 15 November 1997. On the same date he received an allotment of a further 500 shares. He purchased, on 16 October 1999, a further 400 Telstra 2 shares. The shares were offered to Telstra employees with an interest free staff loan and the loan is repaid by dividends paid in relation to the shareholding. Currently there is an amount of $7,188.00 outstanding with respect to this combined shareholding. The husband now holds shares with a value of $17,244.00 by virtue of his being a Telstra employee at the time the packages were offered. The Telstra loan remains in place but it continues to be interest-free and dividend payments are meeting the repayments with respect to the loan. Counsel for the husband argued that the husband’s contribution to these shares was that he held them for the requisite 3 year period; that they were acquired post separation; and that he, being a Telstra employee, contributed solely to their acquisition. Counsel for the wife argued that the husband’s shareholding represented a “windfall” for the husband in which the wife should share;
h)The husband at the date of hearing had approximately $2,800.00 in savings post separation;
i)The husband has considerable superannuation with Telstra Super Division 2, namely an entitlement of $271,955.00 in addition to considerable Long Service Leave and Sick Leave accrual.
The Avco loan
The husband has had the benefit of occupation of the former matrimonial home since separation 3 years ago. Some 4-5 weeks before trial the husband expended the sum of $3,195.00 on repairing and respraying the real property. He borrowed this money. There is no evidence before me that the value of the home (agreed in the sum of $90,000) was increased as a result of these repairs. There is no evidence before me that it was imperative that these repairs be carried out just prior to trial. This expense may just as easily have been incurred following the transfer of the former matrimonial home to the husband. The husband will have the benefit of that transfer as he has had the benefit of occupation in the last 3 years. By comparison the wife has paid considerably more in rental costs viz-viz the mortgage repayments made by the husband. The husband did not consult the wife as to this expenditure nor the need for same. I do not believe it is appropriate in light of all the matters that this particular liability should be taken into account to reduce the equity in the real property. I find the equity in the real property to be in the sum of $86,730.00 and determine that the husband should be personally liable for the sum of $3,195.00.
The wife suggested there has been some deterioration of the home since her departure. On the evidence I do not find the husband has allowed the matrimonial home to deteriorate since separation and find that he has done what he can to maintain it, in addition to working full-time and providing financial and emotional support to the parties two sons. A broken flywire does not constitute neglect and I accept the husband’s evidence that although the house might be messy at times it is neither dirty nor deteriorating as a result of his neglect.
The husband’s savings
I do not propose to include in the asset pool available for division between the parties the husband’s savings at the date of hearing of approximately $2,800.00. These savings were all accumulated post-separation. Likewise, the wife accumulated savings post-separation, which shall not be taken into account. At the point of separation, there were savings of approximately $2,000 but there were monies owing to the husband’s parents, which the wife claimed to have been gifted, and the husband to have been loaned to the parties. The purpose of the advance was a specific one namely to assist the parties in having a holiday and that purpose was never fulfilled and the advance equated to the savings held by the parties. I propose for the husband to indemnify the wife with respect to any amount said to be advanced by way of loan by his parents but otherwise to not include in the assets available for distribution any savings in the husband’s name at separation. I accept the husband’s evidence as to this matter and say further that any small amounts that the husband had he was required to spend on the support of the parties two sons.
Motor vehicle
The subject vehicle is a 1992 Ford Sedan, which has done 280,000Km. There is no expert evidence before me as to its valuation. The wife adopted that valuation provided by the husband some two months earlier before the husband revised his position downward. Given the age of the vehicle and odometer reading I accept Counsel for the husband’s submissions that although the market value on the insurance policy is in the sum of $9,200.00, and that consequently the husband had, on an earlier occasion adopted that figure, the reality is that its value is more likely to be $4,060.00
I do not believe the preferable course is to order the sale of the said vehicle so that its real value can be revealed by market forces. There is a small property pool in this matter and to take away from it by requiring the husband to obtain a roadworthy with respect to this vehicle and then incur the costs of sale, in my view, is inappropriate. I find also that since separation the husband has made some car repayments although in what sum was not disclosed and that he has also maintained the car albeit he has had the use of same. However, he has over a considerable period of time namely from December 1997 until May 2000, made the said car available to the wife for her use five mornings each week requiring same to be returned to him in the evenings. He has also transported the parties son R to his various sporting and social activities and to and from occasional contact visits with his mother.
Household furniture
Again, no expert evidence was put before the Court but the sum of $10,000.00 was put forward by the husband and agreed to by the wife in their various Statements of Financial Circumstances. The wife’s evidence as to the furniture in the real property was that such furniture did include furniture provided for and used by the boys including their beds and bedding. It also included a couch given to the parties by the husband’s parents and all of the furniture in the home had been held by the family over a long period of time with most of it being approximately 15 years old. The husband, together with the parties sons, has had the benefit of the use of this furniture, and it seems fair and reasonable as between the parties that I include the sum of $6,666.00 for furniture being two-thirds of the value as provided by the parties. This makes a provision of one-third for that furniture used by the parties sons in an ongoing manner. Given the description of the furniture by both parties this figure may well be too high but I am constrained by the only valuation I have which is that agreed to by the parties namely a figure of $10,000.00.
Life insurance policy and savings plan
The combined value of the policy and savings plan is $29,875.00 available immediately. Although the husband has made ongoing contributions to the policy and savings plan since separation he has had the financial capacity to do so in the interim whilst the wife has not. He has continued to remain in occupation of the home; have possession of the motor vehicle and furniture; not paid spousal maintenance until April of this year, some 2½ years post-separation, and I find it appropriate that he continued to make regular payments with respect to the policy and savings plan on behalf of the parties. In any event, it was not really urged upon me that I take the value of these assets as anything other than $29,875.00.
Husband’s shareholding
The current value of the shareholding is $17,244.00 less an amount outstanding of $7,188.00 leaving an equity of $10,056.00. Counsel for the husband urged upon me to exclude the Telstra shareholdings as an asset to which both parties have contributed as the shareholding had been purchased by the husband and the wife had made no contribution to the acquisition of such shares. The contribution made by the husband, it was conceded, was the fact of his continued employment with Telstra. Counsel for the wife urged me to find the shareholding of the husband to be in the nature of a “windfall” in that it was only the fact of the husband’s employment that enabled him to acquire the shares at effectively no cost to him.
The husband conceded in evidence that it was possible he received a Letter of Offer concerning the Telstra shares just prior to separation. He agreed that he had been very lucky and that the offer and subsequent taking up of such offer could be considered a windfall. The second offer of Telstra 2 shares was in the same manner.
I consider that the wife has made a indirect contribution to the acquisition of this shareholding in that she supported the husband throughout the many years that he was gainfully employed at Telstra in her role as home-maker. The acquisition of the shares does really represent a windfall to the employees of Telstra and I am of the view that the husband’s current shareholding less the current outstanding loan should be included in the assets available for distribution between the parties.
Rather than the term “windfall” the Full Court has determined that the term “contribution” is a preferable description. (See Zyk & Zyk, (1995) Family Law Cases 92/644). The critical question is by whom the contribution is made. In this case I find that the income of the husband together with the benefits provided to him by virtue of his employment should be regarded as a contribution equal to that of the domestic and parental activities performed by the wife. Both activities were for the joint benefit of the parties. The acquisition of the shareholding was not due to any particular effort or act of either the husband or wife save the act of the husband in accepting the offer. I do not find that the husband has a greater claim than the wife to the shareholding and determine that it is an asset to be included and apportioned in some manner between the parties.
The law
Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) enables this Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act to alter interests in property between the parties to a marriage. The relevant considerations to be taken into account when making an Order under Section 79(1) are set out in Section 79(4). Section 79(4)(e) refers to Section 75(2) matters so far as they are relevant. Section 79(2) is important and provides:
“The Court shall not make an Order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the Order”.
I have in the preceding paragraphs identified the property of the parties and made an assessment as to their value at the time of trial. I now set that out below:
Value
a)
The real property
$86,730.00
b)
The husband’s motor vehicle
$4,060.00
c)
The parties furniture
$6,666.00
d)
Life insurance and saving plan
$29,875.00
e)
Shareholdings
$10,056.00
Total :
$137,387.00
I propose to adopt a global approach with respect to the division of these assets. This marriage is of long duration. The parties have pooled their assets throughout its duration with a situation existing post-separation wherein the wife has allowed the husband to continue in occupation of the matrimonial home and indirectly supported the sons by virtue thereof; the wife has provided the husband with ongoing use of the motor vehicle with the husband likewise providing the wife with use of the car to enable her to attend at her employment, the husband providing the necessary petrol and maintenance in respect to the wife’s usage; the furniture in the home has remained with the husband and the sons of the marriage having the use thereof; and the husband has made ongoing contributions in a small weekly sum to the life insurance and savings plan on behalf of the parties.
When considering the contributions made by each of the parties toward the acquisition of these assets I refer to the parties evidence that in fact there was an equal contribution by each of them certainly until 1993. The husband gave evidence that thereafter the wife was not available increasingly to perform home-maker duties. The evidence is however that the wife did remain at home and performed household duties whilst the husband worked between 1993 and 1997 and that the wife was the primary care giver to the parties two sons during that period. Although the husband made an initial contribution to the purchase of the matrimonial home this contribution was offset by the contributions made by the wife over a long marriage. I conclude that in general terms the parties contributions were one of equality until the point of separation.
Thereafter, although the husband’s contribution to the support of the parties two sons has been far greater than that of the wife, I find the wife has made a contribution in her provision to the husband, for the benefit of the husband and the parties two sons, of the ongoing occupation of the matrimonial home; the ongoing use of the family motor vehicle; and the ongoing use of the parties furniture. For some 2½ years, the wife desisted from an Application for spousal maintenance in circumstances where she certainly had an entitlement. During that period, the husband also clearly had a capacity to pay. In a financial sense, there was no inequality. I find however that the parties contribution between separation in September 1997 to the date of trial to have been unequal in that the husband’s contribution to the welfare of the family has clearly been greater. He has been an almost sole parent and home-maker with little input from the wife in that period of time. He has with indirect assistance of the wife provided total financial support for the children, one of whom is now self-supporting. The other is not and will require the husband’s assistance for possibly the next 2 years. The husband is clearly intent on providing for his sons thereafter should that be necessary. As against that adjustment however, I must offset the future needs of the parties and the huge disparity in their income and income earning capacity.
There is no current child support assessment and nor is there likely to be in the future with respect to the child R. However overwhelmingly, it is the wife’s future needs that I must consider. The husband has conceded in evidence that the wife is living in poor circumstances and the husband is residing in economically better circumstances. Even when the husband is required to increase his borrowing’s to pay out the wife’s interest in the home, his position will still be considerably superior to that of the wife.
The husband’s evidence is that he enjoys his work and believes that there is a future for him at Telstra. He commenced his employment with Telstra in January 1972, a period of some eight years before the parties commenced cohabitation, and as at the present time this is a continuous period of employment of approximately 28 years. The wife on the other hand, has not been in permanent employment since 1983 and she has no qualifications or work experience that would suit her for reasonably remunerated employment at the present time. The husband conceded that her earning capacity was extremely limited and contained to menial work receiving commensurate wages. I accept that the wife is endeavouring to find employment and that she obtains the weekend papers to seek out employment opportunities and that she regularly sends off her curriculum vitae to prospective employers.
Given the length of this marriage and the small asset pool available to the parties currently, coupled with the limited earning capacity of the wife by comparison with the husband, I find that the assets should be divided as between the parties in the proportions of 70 per cent to the wife and 30 per cent to the husband. I have taken into account an adjustment in favour of the husband to the welfare of the family post separation and therefore reduced the wife’s entitlement down to an adjustment of 70:30 percentage in her favour. That is, the husband should make a payment to the wife in the sum of $96,171.00. The husband contemporaneous with the payment shall have transferred to him the real property and thereafter he shall remain in possession of the motor vehicle, furniture, life insurance and savings plan and shareholdings. If the husband so desires he can obtain immediate access to the cash value of the life insurance and savings plan and the shareholding of approximately $40,000.00. He will thus be required to take out borrowings in the sum of approximately $56,000.00 secured over the real property. In addition to the present encumbrance this will be an amount of $60,000.00 which will result in a mortgage repayment of less than the $70,000.00 borrowings contemplated by him in relation to which his evidence was that the mortgage repayments would total approximately $198.00 per week. For the foregoing reasons I am satisfied in all the circumstances that an apportionment of the parties’ property in this manner is just and equitable as between them and enables the husband to continue in occupation of the matrimonial home whilst enabling the wife to purchase accommodation for herself of similar standard.
Spousal maintenance application
Pursuant to Section 74 of the Act the Court may make such order as it considers proper for the provision of maintenance for the wife in accordance with Part 8 of the Act. Section 72 sets out:
“that a party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party, to the extent that the first mentioned party is reasonably able to do so, if, and only if, that other party is unable to support herself adequately whether-
(a)By reason of having the care and control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years;
(b)By reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment; or
(c)For any other adequate reason.
Having regard to any relevant matter referred to in subsection 75 (2). Section 75(2) sets out the matters to be so taken into account and in this instance subparagraphs (b) (g) (j) (k) (n) and (na) are particularly relevant.
I have referred above to the proposed order pursuant to Section 79 that is to be made adjusting the property interests of the parties.
The orders made pursuant to Section 79 will considerably increase the mortgage repayments made by the husband. The wife on the other hand should be able to obtain accommodation without the ongoing necessity for a rental expense. This adjustment decreases the husband’s capacity to borrow and assists the wife’s needs in that her accommodation needs should be met.
Considerable time was spent cross-examining the wife as to her necessary expenses on a weekly basis. I find her expenses to be minimal and relative to the husband’s of a subsistence nature. I accept the wife’s evidence that her expenses are in fact those as stated by her and that items such as her expenditure on petrol in the sum of $40.00 per week relates to her use of her nephew’s car for five days a week to travel to and from work. A minor part of her expenditure also relates to her genuine efforts to seek out employment. She clearly is unable to support herself adequately.
However, I do not find the husband will have a capacity to provide for the maintenance of the wife during the currency of his support for the parties son R. The payment to be made to the wife will significantly increase the borrowing costs of the husband. He continues to provide financial support for the parties son R and although I would deduct from his expenditure certain amounts being unnecessary or one-off expenses (such as his credit card) I do not find that he will have surplus income over expenditure with which to meet a maintenance claim by the wife at the present time.
Superannuation
I propose to accede to the wife’s application and pursuant to Section 79(5) of the Act adjourn the proceedings otherwise until the husband becomes entitled to payment of his superannuation benefit whether by retirement or retrenchment or any other reason.
The husband has accumulated leave entitlements of over $60,000.00. He is in secure employment. He is a member of a superannuation scheme with a present retirement value of approximately $271,955.00 but which is not likely to be available to him for at least nine years, he being aged 46 at the time of hearing. There is a modest equity in the parties home and the total value of their assets is small as compared with the superannuation and long service leave entitlements of the husband. Justice and equity demand that the proceedings be otherwise adjourned. The wife’s role as home-maker throughout the marriage has significantly adversely affected her capacity to support herself since separation and ongoing. For these reasons the criterion contained in Section 79(5) are, in my view, met. (See Carson (1999) FLC 92-835 and Grace (1998) FLC 92-792).
I certify that the preceding forty-three (43) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Hartnett FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0