FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – alteration of property interests under the Family Law Act (1975) (Cth) – consideration of the parties’ respective contributions – where the husband and the wife failed to make full and frank disclosure of their respective financial positions – parties’ conduct as litigants - where the wife failed to comply with orders – matter heard undefended - where the husband has significant tax liabilities – consideration of Stanford and Stanford (2012) 87 ALJR 74 and Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 75(2), s 79, s 79(2), s 79(4)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: No appearance
Respondent: Self Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant:
Respondent: Self Represented Litigant

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bevan & Bevan (2013) 49 Fam LR 387
Black & Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287
Bolger & Headon [2014] FamCAFC 27
Briese & Briese (1986) FLC 91-713
C & C (2005) FLC 93-220
Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93-117
Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
Dickons & Dickons[2012] FamCAFC 154
Ferraro & Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335
G & G [2004] FamCA 1179
Giunti & Gianti (1986) FLC 91-759
Gould & Gould (2007) FLC 93-333
Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1081
Jennis & Jennis [2013] FCWA 81
K & K [2002] FamCA 1150
Lee Steere & Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626
Mezzacappa & Mezzacappa (1987) FLC 91-853
Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19
Oriolo & Oriolo (1985) FLC 91‑653
Pastrikos & Pastrikos (1978) 31 FLR 524
Pastrikos & Pastrikos (1980) FLC 90-897
Re Chemaisse; Federal Commissioner of Taxation (Intervener) (1990) FLC 92-133
Reed and Reed and Draper (1995) FLC 92-649
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 87 ALJR 74
Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193
Waters & Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635
Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92‑338
White & White (1995) FLC 92-648
Whitely & Whitely (1996) FLC 92-684

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

Introduction

1Before the Court are the parties' competing applications for property settlement.
2The wife filed an application initiating proceedings on 8 September 2006. The husband filed a response on 5 October 2006. The wife's application initiating proceedings has been amended and re-amended since that time.
3The parties' claims and counterclaims became progressively more convoluted and unstructured as the proceedings progressed. As issue piled upon issue, both parties appeared to lose sight of the wood for the trees.
4The trial seems to have commenced, before her Honour Justice Martin, on 3 September 2009. It continued in a disjointed fashion until 4 April…

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 HADLOW and BROSNAN

Details

AGLC: HADLOW and BROSNAN [2014] FCWA 23
Case: [2014] FCWA 23
Decision Date: 11 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Family Law Act – adjustment of property interests – dispute over the valuation and division of assets during a divorce. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of the Family Law Act when determining the valuation and division of assets between the parties. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the value of a property held by the parties and whether he had appropriately considered the contributions made by each party to the acquisition and maintenance of that property.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of the value of the property. The evidence presented by both parties regarding the valuation of the property was conflicting, and the trial judge's decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had properly considered the contributions made by each party to the acquisition and maintenance of the property, and had appropriately exercised his discretion in dividing the property interests between the parties. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders made by the trial judge were upheld.

Orders