Hornley & Hornley

Case [2023] FedCFamC1F 557


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

Details
AGLC
Hornley & Hornley [2023] FedCFamC1F 557
Case
[2023] FedCFamC1F 557
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hornley & Hornley, the parties involved were the husband and wife, with the husband bringing the matter before the court. The dispute centred around the division of the couple's marital assets, specifically a property in South Australia. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia was tasked with making a determination on the matter. The wife argued that the husband had undervalued the property, while the husband contended that the valuation was accurate.

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

Orders will be made to that effect.CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, I make the orders as set out in the forefront of this judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.