HARDRICK and HARDRICK - [2022] FCWA 90

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: HARDRICK and HARDRICK [2022] FCWA 90
CORAM: DUNCANSON J
HEARD: 10, 11, 12 NOVEMBER 2021
DELIVERED : 29 APRIL 2022
FILE NO/S: [Redacted]
BETWEEN: MR HARDRICK
Applicant
AND
MRS HARDRICK
Respondent

Catchwords:

PROPERTY - where it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order - where the parties' interests in UK pensions are treated as financial resources of each of them - consideration of expert evidence with respect to the husband's UK pension - assessment of contributions - considerations of justice and equity

SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE - application dismissed

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 72, s 74, s 75(1), s 75(2), s 79

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr D Klicker
Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Beacon Family Law
Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant

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

Bevan & Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600
Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204
Coghlan and Coghlan (2005) FLC 93–220
Petruski & Balewa [2013] FamCAFC 15

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hardrick and Hardrick has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 312(b) Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)), or to record a variation to the orders pursuant to r 311 Family Court Rules 2021 (WA).

1[Mr Hardrick], the husband and [Mrs Hardrick], the wife are unable to agree about the division of their property.
2A significant issue for determination is the treatment of the husband's overseas pension, [Pension A] with [Employer A]. The wife seeks payment of a cash sum representing a share of what she asserts to be the value of the pension. The husband's position is that the pension is a financial resource and is not capable of division.

THE ORDERS SOUGHT

3The orders which were sought by the husband at the commencement of trial are contained in his papers for the Judicial Officer filed 25 June 2021. However, his position subsequently changed.
4In closing, the husband made two proposals to the wife with reference to his submissions handed up in Court which became exhibit 13. The husband's alternative proposal, contained in page 3 of the submissions, provides that the property of the parties (excluding Pension A), is divided 26.4% to the husband and 73.6% to the wife. In that proposal the husband retains the Pension A, and an adjustment to the wife pursuant to s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") gives rise to the percentage division. The husband proposes that the percentage division be given effect by the wife receiving the whole of his [Superannuation Fund A] and a cash adjustment of…

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 HARDRICK and HARDRICK

Details

AGLC: HARDRICK and HARDRICK [2022] FCWA 90
Case: [2022] FCWA 90
Decision Date: 29 APRIL 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hardrick and Hardrick involved a dispute between the parties regarding a property settlement and spousal maintenance. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The central issue was whether it was just and equitable to make a property settlement order, considering the parties' interests in UK pensions and the expert evidence provided regarding the husband's UK pension. Additionally, the court needed to assess the contributions made by each party and the considerations of justice and equity.

The court examined the expert evidence regarding the husband's UK pension to understand its value and contribution to the overall financial resources. It considered the contributions made by both parties to their respective financial resources, including their UK pensions. The court assessed the overall fairness and justice of the proposed property settlement, taking into account the evidence and submissions made by both parties. In determining the spousal maintenance application, the court found that it was not just and equitable to grant the wife spousal maintenance based on the evidence and submissions presented.

The court ruled that the parties' interests in their UK pensions were to be treated as their respective financial resources. It considered the expert evidence and the contributions of both parties in reaching its decision. The court found that a property settlement order was just and equitable, considering all the circumstances. The spousal maintenance application was dismissed as the court did not find it appropriate to grant spousal maintenance to the wife. The final orders reflected the court's decision on the property settlement and the dismissal of the spousal maintenance application.

Orders