FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Hornley & Hornley [2023] FedCFamC1F 557
File number: WOC 840 of 2021 Judgment of: CAMPTON J Date of judgment: 7 July 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of the value of the husband and wife’s property available for adjustment, contributions and adjustments to the contributions – Where a just and equitable division of both the superannuation and non-superannuation pools of property is found to be 60 per cent in favour of the wife and 40 per cent in favour of the husband.
FAMILY LAW – SPOUSE MAINTENANCE – Where the husband is to pay a weekly sum of $500 to the wife until the adjusting sum is paid and $200 per week for 18 months thereafter.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72, 74, 75, 79
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99
Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600; [1995] FamCA 95
Currie v Hamilton [1984] 1 NSWLR 687
De Angelis and De Angelis (2003) FLC 93-133; [1999] FamCA 1609
Fewster & Drake (2016) FLC 93-745; [2016] FamCAFC 214
Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490; [2016] HCA 23
Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25
Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757; [1997] FamCA 27
Seitzinger & Seitzinger (2014) FLC 93-626; [2014] FamCAFC 244
Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52
White and Tulloch (1995) FLC 92-640; [1995] FamCA 127
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 152 Date of hearing: 8–9 June 2023 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Haughton Solicitor for the Applicant: Ca Williams Legal Pty Ltd Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Reeve Solicitor for the Respondents: Marsdens Law Group Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Harper Solicitor for the Respondents: Meehans Solicitors Law Group ORDERS
WOC 840 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS HORNLEY
Applicant
AND: MR B HORNLEY
First Respondent
MR C HORNLEY
Second Respondent
order made by:
CAMPTON J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 July 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Non-superannuation property
1.Within three months from the date of these orders:
(a)The husband shall pay or cause to be paid to the wife as she may direct in writing the sum of $464,897 (“the adjusting payment”); and
(b)Simultaneously with receipt of the adjusting payment, the wife shall do all such things and sign all such documents as are necessary to transfer to the husband her right, title and interest in the property at D Street, Suburb E (“the Suburb E property”) and the husband thereafter shall indemnify the wife in relation to any claim, action or liability relating to the Commonwealth Bank mortgage secured upon the Suburb E property; and
(c)Each of the parties shall do all such things and sign all such documents as are…
Continue reading Hornley & Hornley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hornley & Hornley [2023] FedCFamC1F 557
- Case
- [2023] FedCFamC1F 557
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the husband had undervalued the property and if the wife's proposed valuation was more accurate. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties, including the valuation reports, and determine if there was any error or bias in the husband's assessment. Additionally, the court needed to consider the weight of the wife's proposed valuation and whether it was supported by sufficient evidence.
The court found that the husband's valuation of the property was indeed undervalued and that the wife's proposed valuation was more accurate. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the expert reports, and determined that the wife's valuation was more reliable. The court also found that the husband's valuation was influenced by his personal interests, which led to an undervaluation of the property. As a result, the court ordered that the property be valued according to the wife's proposed valuation. The court also made orders to that effect, ensuring that the division of the marital assets was fair and equitable.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.