GRADY & CHILCOTT
[2020] FamCAFC 143
•11 June 2020
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GRADY & CHILCOTT | [2020] FamCAFC 143 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant appeals from final property adjustment orders – Where the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where no property adjustment was made – Whether the primary judge erred in finding that it was not just and equitable to make a property adjustment order – Weight challenges – Where the findings made by the primary judge were within her discretion – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 90SF, 90SM, 117 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Sch 3 |
| CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 76 Chancellor & McCoy (2016) FLC 93-752; [2016] FamCAFC 256 Grady & Chilcott & Ors [2018] FCCA 1690 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63 Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28 Stanfordv Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Grady |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Chilcott |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 1297 | of | 2014 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | SOA | 44 | of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 11 June 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne (via video link) |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Ainslie-Wallace, Watts & Tree JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 4 May 2020 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Circuit Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 5 August 2019 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2019] FCCA 2119 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr Stavris |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Anthonys Solicitors |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Penno |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Bevan-Rhys James |
Orders
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $18,506.94 and payable within forty-two (42) days of the date of these orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Grady & Chilcott has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to
s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
Appeal Number: SOA 44 of 2019
File Number: MLC 1297 of 2014
| Ms Grady |
Appellant
And
| Mr Chilcott |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ms Grady (“the appellant”) appeals from final property adjustment orders made between her and Mr Chilcott (“the respondent”) by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court on 5 August 2019.
The effect of the primary judge’s orders provide the appellant with ownership of her personal possessions, properties in Country E, money, any motor vehicle and any superannuation or insurance benefits then in her possession or standing to her credit.
The appellant and the respondent were in a de facto relationship, the extent of which was in dispute but which was found by the primary judge to have existed from late 2005 until September 2013 (at [155]). The appellant brought property settlement proceedings against the respondent in 2014. It is fair to say that the proceedings have had a long and somewhat fraught history.
On the face of it, at the commencement of the relationship, the respondent held significant and valuable properties and conducted a profitable business. However, the respondent asserted that, legal title notwithstanding, he in fact held the properties on trust for members of his family. That assertion was rejected by the primary judge at [89] and was not the subject of challenge on appeal. Thus, the properties were brought to account in the determination of the proceedings as owned by the respondent. Those properties, another two purchased by the respondent during the relationship and two properties in Country E purchased by the appellant gave a total value of $4,012,500. From that gross amount was deducted the mortgages against the appellant’s Country E properties and, curiously a debt which she owed to the respondent of $56,000, and to which we will return later in these reasons, giving a combined net value of the assets of the parties of $3,915,500 (see Grady & Chilcott & Ors [2018] FCCA 1690 (“Grady & Chilcott”) at [22]).
Some background to the parties’ relationship and their dispute is helpful in providing context to the appeal. The background is taken from her Honour’s reasons for judgment delivered on 5 August 2019 but also her reasons for judgment in Grady & Chilcott, delivered on 29 June 2018 in associated proceedings and which she incorporated into the reasons of 5 August 2019 (at [2]).
Background
The respondent was born in 1959 and before commencing the relationship with the appellant, was married and there are two adult children of that relationship. The appellant was born in 1974 and has a child from a prior relationship who stayed with the parties for a short time before moving to separate accommodation.
At the commencement of the relationship, the respondent owned three industrial properties, B1, B2 and B3 and another at Property C. One of the properties at Suburb S, namely Property B2, was originally purchased and sold before the commencement of the relationship (with an option to repurchase the property) and was repurchased by the respondent in 2007 during the de facto relationship. The respondent repurchased the property with his own funds borrowed against his interest in his other properties. During the relationship, the respondent also purchased another property at Property A, to which her Honour found the appellant made no meaningful contribution to the purchase of the property and accepted the respondent’s evidence that he had bought it borrowing against his other properties (at [113]).
The respondent also conducted a successful business.
During the relationship, the appellant worked as an allied health professional. She agreed that she made no financial contribution to the acquisition of any of the properties owned by the respondent (at [100]–[103]). Nor did the appellant contribute financially to the parties’ living expenses.
During the relationship, the parties lived in a property owned by the respondent and while there was a dispute about the extent to which the appellant attended to domestic duties for both of them, the primary judge accepted that the appellant did contribute in that way.
The appellant argued that she assisted the respondent in his business by attending to data entry and other clerical work. The respondent disputed the extent of the assistance that the appellant said she gave him. She did however attend to payments of bills, with the respondent signing blank cheques, understanding that the appellant would withdraw money from the bank or use it to pay bills. In fact in what appears to have been a course of criminal conduct, the appellant would write one figure on the cheque butt, but would withdraw significantly more from the bank. The discovery of her fraud occurred on 26 September 2013 which brought about the end of the relationship.
The respondent alleged that the appellant stole some $141,262.98 from him (at [23]). The appellant was charged with a number of offences, the amounts stolen being said to be more than $150,000. The appellant pleaded guilty to a “rolled up charge” by which we understand her plea was to a number of the charges but not all, and by apparent agreement with the prosecuting authorities, those charges reflected her theft of $58,286. On her plea she was convicted and sentenced to a Community Corrections Order which required her to perform 300 hours of supervised unpaid community work. She was further ordered to pay compensation to the respondent in the sum of $58,286. At about the same time, it seems that the appellant had stolen $5,000 from the respondent’s mother and as part of her sentence, she was ordered to pay compensation to the respondent’s mother in the sum of $5,000. Neither of these payments has been made (at [24]–[25]).
One of the issues before the primary judge was whether in determining the assets of the parties available for division, she should “add back” the difference between what the respondent said the appellant stole and what she was ordered to pay by way of compensation (at [21(a)]). Although the respondent’s accountant provided evidence on this point, her Honour concluded that it was not sufficiently particular to support the claim by the respondent to “add back” that difference (at [29]).
It was common ground that from time to time, the respondent received payments from rent and other sources which he would transfer into the appellant’s account to be used for entertainment or as he termed it “splash money” (at [30]). It is tolerably clear that these funds were not otherwise declared by the respondent for tax purposes. While some might think it a bold submission, counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent had committed fraud in failing to declare this money, however her Honour preferred instead to find that the respondent was “reckless” and observed that he would need to file amended tax returns (at [35]).
It was also common ground that while the parties were out socialising, the respondent liked to gamble and, not having a credit card of his own, would borrow money from the appellant against her credit card. The respondent agreed that he did this but said that he always paid the money back to the appellant. As part of the argument, the appellant contended that because of the respondent’s use of her credit card, her indebtedness on that card increased to $50,000. Her Honour did not accept that, noting that the appellant produced no evidence to support her contention (at [129]). The appellant alleged that the respondent’s gambling wasted funds that would otherwise have been available to the parties, a proposition which was not accepted by the primary judge (at [132]).
Her Honour noted that during the course of the relationship, the appellant worked throughout the relationship and agreed that she and the respondent kept their finances separate (at [64]). The appellant sent money to her family in Country E and said that from 2014, she had been paying the mortgage on her daughter’s property in Country E. She also acquired, it seems during the relationship, one property in her name in Country E which she said was purchased for approximately AUD60,000 and which was subject to a mortgage of $37,500. She asserted that her brother lives in the property and while he pays utility bills, pays no rent (at [116]). A second property was purchased by her in 2002 and is subject to a small mortgage. That too is occupied by a relative who does not pay rent (at [115]). The properties were said by the appellant to have a combined estimated value of $112,500 subject to a mortgage of $41,000 (Grady & Chilcott at [25]). Her Honour noted however that there was no expert evidence of the value of the Country E properties (at [117]).
The primary judge concluded that the acquisition and maintenance of these properties was both consistent with the appellant’s evidence that she and the respondent kept their finances separate from one another but also with her not making any financial contribution towards the relationship with the respondent (at [119]).
Her Honour also noted at [136] that the appellant has superannuation entitlements of about $70,000 although the respondent has none.
At the time of the hearing before the primary judge, the respondent was not working and his business had closed down. Her Honour dismissed the submission by the appellant that the respondent deliberately “ran the business down” and found that the theft by the appellant would have had an impact on the cash flow of the business. Neither did her Honour accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant that it was the respondent’s fault that she was criminally charged (at [139]).
The appellant was not working at the time of the hearing before the primary judge having lost her job once convicted.
Her Honour turned to a consideration of whether it would be just and equitable to make an order for the division of property at [156]–[164] and concluded that it was not at [165]. Her Honour found that the appellant had made no financial contribution during the relationship other than buying groceries. The appellant was not required to pay rent for her accommodation which enabled her to keep the income she earned, allowing her to purchase a second property in Country E. Her Honour did not accept that the appellant had assisted the respondent in his business.
While her Honour acknowledged that the respondent was in a significantly superior financial position to the appellant, she found that this position was not as strong as it was before the relationship and noted that he had not been paid the compensation ordered as part of the appellant’s sentence (at [162]).
The primary judge concluded:
163.I need to consider whether it is just and equitable to make any adjustment of the parties’ legal and equitable interests. It does [sic] automatically flow that it is just and equitable to make such orders even after finding a seven year relationship. Each case must turn on its own facts.
164.[The respondent] made the overwhelming financial contributions to the relationship. [The appellant] bought groceries and lent [the respondent] money when they went out, which he repaid. There is no evidence that she made any other financial contribution to the properties. She was able to keep her earning separate and purchase a second property in [Country E]. She will keep these properties. [The respondent] will keep the properties he owned prior to the relationship and [Property A] which he purchased without financial assistance from [the appellant].
The appeal
From the outset we should note that the appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on 29 August 2019 identified grounds that referred to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). This appeal however deals with a de facto property dispute, and therefore ss 90SF and 90SM of the Act apply, however in the result, nothing turns on this error.
Section 90SM(3) of the Act identifies that the court must not make an order for property settlement unless it is satisfied that to do so is just and equitable.
Although this section confers a broad discretion it must be exercised in accordance with legal principles.
If the court finds that it is just and equitable to make such an order, then the court must turn to s 90SM(4) of the Act to determine what order is to be made.
The plurality, French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ in Stanfordv Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 said:
36.The expression “just and equitable” is a qualitative description of a conclusion reached after examination of a range of potentially competing considerations. It does not admit of exhaustive definition. It is not possible to chart its metes and bounds…
37.First, it is necessary to begin consideration of whether it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order by identifying, according to ordinary common law and equitable principles, the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property. So much follows from the text of s 79(1)(a) itself, which refers to “altering the interests of the parties to the marriage in the property” (emphasis added). The question posed by s 79(2) is thus whether, having regard to those existing interests, the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order.
38.Secondly, although s 79 confers a broad power on a court exercising jurisdiction under the Act to make a property settlement order, it is not a power that is to be exercised according to an unguided judicial discretion…
39.Because the power to make a property settlement order is not to be exercised in an unprincipled fashion, whether it is “just and equitable” to make the order is not to be answered by assuming that the parties’ rights to or interests in marital property are or should be different from those that then exist. All the more is that so when it is recognised that s 79 of the Act must be applied keeping in mind that “[c]ommunity of ownership arising from marriage has no place in the common law”. Questions between husband and wife about the ownership of property that may be then, or may have been in the past, enjoyed in common are to be “decided according to the same scheme of legal titles and equitable principles as govern the rights of any two persons who are not spouses”. The question presented by s 79 is whether those rights and interests should be altered.
40.Thirdly, whether making a property settlement order is “just and equitable” is not to be answered by beginning from the assumption that one or other party has the right to have the property of the parties divided between them or has the right to an interest in marital property which is fixed by reference to the various matters (including financial and other contributions) set out in s 79(4). The power to make a property settlement order must be exercised “in accordance with legal principles, including the principles which the Act itself lays down”. To conclude that making an order is “just and equitable” only because of and by reference to various matters in s 79(4), without a separate consideration of s 79(2), would be to conflate the statutory requirements and ignore the principles laid down by the Act.
(Emphasis in original) (Footnotes omitted)
It is against this background, both factual and legal, that we turn to consider the grounds of appeal. No challenge is made to her Honour’s articulation of the relevant law or principles, but although expressed in different ways, the thrust of the appeal is that her Honour erred in the exercise of her discretion in making no property adjustment in the appellant’s favour.
Challenges to the exercise of judicial discretion face a significant hurdle to appellate intervention. In the decision of the High Court in CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172, Kirby J, in the course of his judgment, recorded what he referred to as a number of general propositions relating to appeals against discretionary judgments, and at [186] of his Honour’s judgment, in which, amongst other things, his Honour said:
… Neither this Court, nor the Full Court in relation to appeals to it, has authority to disturb a decision under appeal simply because the appellate judges, faced with the same material, would have reached a conclusion different from that under appeal. To approach the appellate function in such a way would contravene established authority. It would involve one level of the judicial hierarchy, without lawful warrant, intruding into the decisions of another. To authorise appellate disturbance, where the decision under appeal is discretionary or involves quasi-discretionary evaluation, it is necessary for those mounting the challenge to demonstrate that, in reaching the orders the subject of the appeal, the court below has acted on a wrong principle or (although the precise error of principle cannot be identified) has reached a conclusion which is plainly wrong. Obviously, what is “plainly wrong” will vary in the eyes of different beholders. It is not necessary for an appellant to demonstrate the kind of unreasonableness that must be shown to authorise judicial intervention in the decision of an administrator otherwise acting within power. The reference to “plainly wrong” is designed to remind the appellate court of the need to approach an appeal with much caution in a case where an error of principle cannot be clearly identified.
(Footnotes omitted)
The contentions on appeal may be briefly summarised under the following headings.
Property acquired during the relationship
It was argued that her Honour erred by giving insufficient weight to the acquisition of Property A (purchased late in the relationship).
The submission continues:
Her Honour perhaps should have adopted an asset-by-asset approach and divided the property into categories – property acquired prior to the relationship and property acquired during. The [a]ppellant should have received a portion of the latter.
(Appellant’s Amended Summary of Argument filed 28 April 2020, p.2)
The difficulty with this submission is that her Honour was not asked to consider the matter on an “asset-by-asset” basis and we find it difficult to see how she erred by not taking a course not suggested to her and, in any event, the appellant cannot now advance that argument on appeal (see Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68 (“Metwally”) at 71).
It is to be understood that her Honour found, and the appellant agreed, that she made no financial contributions of any kind during the relationship. Any adjustment of property in her favour must then reflect her contributions of all other kinds made during the relationship. That a property was acquired during a relationship of itself does not lead to the conclusion that an order for adjustment of property must follow (see Chancellor & McCoy (2016) FLC 93-752 at [68]).
Non-financial contributions
The appellant argued that the primary judge failed to give sufficient weight to her non-financial contributions, further contending that those non-financial contributions allowed the respondent to acquire the two properties during the relationship.
In broad terms, the non-financial contributions said to have been made were the appellant performing domestic chores and assisting the respondent in his business.
Her Honour said:
104. [The appellant] said she did domestic chores including washing, cooking and cleaning.
…
106.[The respondent] says that [the appellant] did not undertake non-financial or financial contributions. He also says that her offer to assist with his bookkeeping enabled her to steal from him. At paragraph 98 and 100 of his affidavit, he says that there was nothing [the appellant] could offer him or the business apart from completing occasional errands and entering information into account spreadsheets, due to her “complete unsuitability to do the work”. [The respondent] says at paragraph 14 that [the appellant] did not cook or do any of [the respondent’s] laundry and did not clean the living area above the factory at [Property B3] where she shared residence. He says that he did not ask or expect her to complete such tasks.
…
114. My impression of the evidence of [the appellant] and [the respondent] is that neither was seeking to mislead the court. I think [the appellant] exaggerated the extent of her contributions and [the respondent] downplayed her contributions. This needs to be seen in the context of the bitter and drawn out nature of dispute and what is at stake for both of them.
…
159.I am satisfied that [the appellant] did more of the domestic chores than [the respondent].
160.I am not satisfied that [the appellant] helped in [the respondent’s] business to the extent she claimed. Whilst she did enter data information for [the respondent] she has also been found guilty of stealing from him. I note that in her case outlines she refers to working in the business without pay from 2004 until 2009. The period for which she was charged with theft relate to the period from 2009 to 2013.
(Emphasis in original)
Clearly then, even though her Honour was well aware of the appellant’s claimed contributions, the contention is that she did not give them sufficient weight. The weight or importance given to evidence is quintessentially a matter for the primary judge and an appellate court will not readily intervene unless it is demonstrated that the primary judge was “plainly wrong” (Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 at 519). She was not. This challenge is not made out.
Gambling, alcohol and domestic violence
Although the appellant’s Amended Summary of Argument at page 4 referred to “[d]omestic [v]iolence”, no submission was made in the appeal about it. True enough during the hearing before the primary judge, the appellant alleged that the respondent had been violent to her. Whilst noting her evidence, the primary judge said at [125]:
In the context of this case the allegations [the appellant] makes does not advance matters as she is not seeking an additional adjustment based on the principles set out by the Full Court in Kennon and Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757.
The appellant did not seek an additional adjustment based on the alleged family violence at the primary proceedings and she is bound by the conduct of her case (Metwally at 71).
That being the case, and there being no submission made on appeal about this aspect, we do not propose to consider it further.
Next it was argued that the primary judge erred in concluding that the respondent’s gambling and alcohol consumption did not amount to waste.
At [126] her Honour rejected the appellant’s characterisation of the respondent’s drinking and said:
[The appellant] alleges that [the respondent] is an alcoholic and a gambler. She says these became significant problems three years into their relationship. She alleges that he drank most days and became aggressive and was physically, emotionally and financially abusive. [The respondent] denied having a drinking problem and vehemently denied drinking methylated spirits as alleged by [the appellant]. He said he has plenty of money to buy alcohol if he wanted it and there was a bottle shop near his home. I prefer his evidence on this point.
In the appellant’s Amended Summary of Argument at paragraph 8, counsel for the appellant advanced the proposition that as a result of the respondent’s gambling and use of the appellant’s credit card to withdraw funds, she was left with a credit card debt of $50,000 with no means of paying it off. Thus, counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent’s gambling placed a strain on the appellant amounting to “financial abuse” of her and of his business.
This argument has no foundation. Her Honour at [129] expressly rejected the appellant’s claim that her credit card debt was a result of the respondent borrowing from her and not repaying the money. Further, her Honour found that while the respondent gambled, he was able to fund it through his drawings from the business and support himself (at [130]). Finally, her Honour rejected the appellant’s submission that the respondent’s gambling amounted to “waste” (at [132]).
Her Honour concluded at [157]:
I am not satisfied that [the appellant] made any significant financial contributions to the relationship. She bought groceries and lent [the respondent] money when he asked for gambling. I am not satisfied that he did not pay those funds back shortly afterwards. My impression is that he is somewhat old fashioned, preferring to go to bank branches and write cheques rather than use ATMS and credit cards.
As part of this ground, it was argued that her Honour erred by not giving sufficient weight to the fact that the respondent paid money into the appellant’s bank account which they used for their entertainment. It was also said that this money, which the respondent did not declare for tax purposes, created “financial burden and stress” on the appellant (Appellant’s Amended Summary of Argument filed 28 April 2020, paragraph 9). Counsel for the respondent argued, and we agree, that there is no evidence of any such financial burden or stress on the appellant.
No error has been demonstrated.
Future needs
It was argued that the primary judge failed to give adequate weight to the disparity as between the parties in relation to future needs, and in particular it was contended that her Honour failed to give proper attention to the appellant’s credit card debt and her liability to repay to the respondent and his mother, the money she stole from them. Further, it was argued that as a result of being convicted, the appellant is not able to find employment.
The primary judge was conscious that the respondent was in a stronger financial position than the appellant. Her Honour however also took into account that during the relationship, the appellant was able to support her family in Country E and acquire another property as a result of her not needing to contribute financially to the parties’ relationship. Her Honour’s orders acknowledge that the appellant will retain her superannuation and the two properties in Country E.
It is not to be ignored that the appellant’s liability to pay financial compensation for her criminal acts is unmet.
Her Honour’s conclusion that there be no adjustment of property as between the parties but, rather, each keep that which he or she then had, was one well within her discretion and none of the challenges advanced has demonstrated error. The appeal will thus be dismissed.
Costs
The respondent sought an order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal in the event that the appeal was unsuccessful. In what can only be described as an eye watering ambit claim, it was suggested that the appellant pay the costs of the original and criminal proceedings in the order of $616,413.90. That sum included “[l]oans taken out by [the] [r]espondent for survival & legal costs of [the original] proceedings” amounting to $261,479. The legal fees claimed of $354,934.90 apparently includes the legal costs associated with the criminal proceedings.
However, counsel for the respondent preferred to rely on a schedule of costs filed on 1 May 2020 which sought a total of $41,544 which counsel conceded was a claim for indemnity costs. Up until the day of the appeal hearing, there was no schedule of costs compliant with the usual directions given in the appeal, that is, the fees sought to be claimed particularised by reference to the scale of fees contained in Sch 3 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”).
However on the day of the appeal hearing, we made orders requiring the respondent to file and serve a schedule of costs calculated in accordance with Sch 3 of the Rules by 3.00 pm on 4 May 2020, to which the respondent has since complied with. This schedule of costs provided that the respondent’s total fees amounted to $18,506.94.
To found the claim for indemnity costs, counsel for the respondent argued that the appeal was wholly unsuccessful (s 117(2A)(e) of the Act) and that the appellant’s claim for property adjustment was “audacious” in the circumstances of her theft of a considerable sum of money from the respondent.
Neither of those arguments persuade us that an order for indemnity costs should be made.
The making of any costs order against the appellant was opposed on the basis that the appellant has no employment and is in receipt of welfare payments.
There is no doubt that the appellant’s financial position is far inferior to that of the respondent (s 117(2A)(a)), but that, of itself, is no bar to making a costs order if one otherwise is appropriate.
The appeal has been wholly unsuccessful and that persuades us that an order for costs should be made.
In our view an order for costs should be made fixed in the sum set out in the respondent’s schedule of costs filed on 4 May 2020.
I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court (Ainslie-Wallace, Watts & Tree JJ) delivered on 11 June 2020.
Associate:
Date: 11 June 2020
5
2