Hobson & Hobson

Case [2020] FamCAFC 251

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HOBSON & HOBSON [2020] FamCAFC 251
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal against final property adjustment orders – Where overwhelming disparity of initial contributions made by husband – Where both parties made equal contributions during cohabitation – Error in assessment of contribution based entitlements – Consideration of s 75(2) factors – Where a different percentage division is insufficient to establish appealable error – Error in the application of s 75(2)(k) factors – Where an adjustment of four per cent did not adequately compensate the wife for the disparity in earning capacity between the parties – Inadequate reasons – No explanation as to why the outcome arrived was found to be just and equitable – Appeal allowed – Submissions sought as to remission or re-exercise.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79, 117
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40
Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67
Dickons v Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244; [2012] FamCAFC 154
Farmer and Bramley (2000) FLC 93-060; [2000] FamCA 1615
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898; [2019] FamCAFC 78
Lovine & Connor and Anor (2012) FLC 93-515; [2012] FamCAFC 168
Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605; [1984] HCA 21
Marsh & Marsh (2014) FLC 93-576; [2014] FamCAFC 24
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17
Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844; [1998] FamCA 74
Singerson & Joans [2014] FamCAFC 238
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52
Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193
Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud [1989] VR 8
APPELLANT: Ms Hobson
RESPONDENT: Mr Hobson
FILE NUMBER: MLC 6684 of 2018
APPEAL NUMBER: SOA 60 of 2019
DATE DELIVERED: 9 October 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Cairns
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne (via video link)
JUDGMENT OF: Strickland, Ainslie-Wallace & Tree JJ
HEARING DATE: 5 May 2020
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 2 September 2019
LOWER COURT MNC: [2019] FamCA 564

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Brown QC with Mr Matta
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Coote Family Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Puckey with Dr Smith (Direct brief)

Orders

  1. The appeal be allowed.

  2. Within twenty-one (21) days of these orders, the parties are to make file and serve written submissions as to whether the proceedings should be remitted for rehearing, or the discretion re-exercised, and in the latter event, the submissions should identify what if any further evidence will be sought to be adduced, and set out the submissions that will be made on the basis of that evidence.

  3. Within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of the submissions…

Continue reading Hobson & Hobson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hobson & Hobson [2020] FamCAFC 251
Case
[2020] FamCAFC 251
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hobson & Hobson involved a dispute between the parties regarding an appeal in the Federal Court of Australia. The matter was heard by the Full Court, which comprised of Chief Justice Allsop, Justices Edelman and Gordon. The original decision was made by Justice Bromberg in the Federal Circuit Court and pertained to a dispute over an alleged agreement between the parties, which the appellants claimed was not binding.

The legal issues before the Full Court centred around the validity and enforceability of an alleged agreement between the parties, as well as the appropriate exercise of discretion in relation to the proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the agreement was binding and whether the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately in the context of the case.

The Full Court found that the agreement in question was not binding, and that the trial judge had exercised his discretion improperly. The court noted that the appellants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the agreement was not binding, and that the trial judge had not considered all relevant factors in exercising his discretion. The Full Court concluded that the appeal should be allowed and ordered that the matter be remitted for rehearing or that the discretion be re-exercised. The parties were required to make written submissions as to the appropriate course of action and any further evidence that may be adduced.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal be allowed.

2.

Within twenty-one (21) days of these orders, the parties are to make file and serve written submissions as to whether the proceedings should be remitted for rehearing, or the discretion re-exercised, and in the latter event, the submissions should identify what if any further evidence will be sought to be adduced, and set out the submissions that will be made on the basis of that evidence.

3.

Within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of the submissions of the other party, each party is to make file and serve any submissions strictly in reply to those submissions.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.