Humphrey & Humphrey (No 6) - [2025] FedCFamC1F 106

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Humphrey & Humphrey (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 106

File number(s): BRC 4211 of 2019

Judgment of: BAUMANN J

Date of judgment: 28 March 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Assessment of contributions – Consideration of what constitutes the disputed pool – Where the parties were unable to produce a joint balance sheet – Consideration of what value to attribute to two relocatable properties – Uncertainty as to any likely Capital Gains Tax – Where a lack of evidence and submissions has left the Court to regard the ultimate finding of the pool as somewhat “notional” – Further submissions required as to what form of final property adjustment orders can be made to achieve justice and equity to both parties

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79

Cases cited:
Biltoft & Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614

Hickey & Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143

Humphrey & Humphrey (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 640

Townsend & Townsend (1994) 18 Fam LR 505

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 94

Date of last submission/s: 20 December 2023

Date of hearing: 28 & 29 January 2020; 8 – 11 June 2020; 17 & 18 August 2023 and 10 November 2023

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms K Oakley

Solicitor for the Applicant: Evans Brandon Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Minnery (28 & 29 January and 8 – 11 June 2020)
Mr G Shoebridge (as he then was) (17 & 18 August and 10 November 2023)

Solicitor for the Respondent: Naughton McCarthy Family Lawyers
ORDERS

BRC 4211 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS HUMPHREY

Applicant

AND:
MR HUMPHREY

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That these proceedings be adjourned for further submissions in the week commencing 31 March 2025, on a date to be fixed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at Adelaide, by telephone.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Humphrey & Humphrey has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BAUMANN J:
INTRODUCTION

These Reasons relate to a hotly contested property dispute between the Applicant wife, Ms Humphrey (“the wife”)…

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 Humphrey & Humphrey (No 6)

Details

AGLC: Humphrey & Humphrey (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 106
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 106
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Humphrey & Humphrey (No 6), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with assessing contributions in the context of a property dispute between the applicant, Ms Humphrey, and the respondent, Mr Humphrey. The couple had been unable to reach an agreement regarding the distribution of their property pool, which included two relocatable properties, and consequently, the court was required to make a determination in their stead. The parties were unable to provide a joint balance sheet, complicating the court's task of valuing the assets and determining the respective contributions to the relationship.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with establishing the value of the two relocatable properties and determining how the property pool should be divided. The court had to consider the contributions made by each party, both financial and non-financial, and the extent to which these contributions should impact the distribution of the property pool. Additionally, the court needed to consider the potential implications of capital gains tax on the final distribution, although the exact nature of these implications was not clear due to the lack of evidence and submissions from the parties.

The court's reasoning highlighted the difficulties in making a definitive assessment of the property pool due to the absence of a joint balance sheet and the uncertainty surrounding the capital gains tax implications. As a result, the court found the ultimate determination of the property pool to be somewhat notional. Baumann J ordered further submissions to be made by the parties to clarify the form of final property adjustment orders that could be made to achieve a just and equitable outcome. The case was adjourned to allow for these further submissions, with a view to resolving the matter in a subsequent hearing.

The court's orders included an adjournment of the proceedings for further submissions in the week commencing 31 March 2025, to be held by telephone before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at Adelaide. The form of the order was subject to entry in the Court's records, with the possibility of review or variation as per the relevant rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

BRC 4211 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS HUMPHREY

Applicant

AND:

MR HUMPHREY

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS:

1. That these proceedings be adjourned for further submissions in the week commencing 31 March 2025, on a date to be fixed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at Adelaide, by telephone.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	BRC 4211 of 2019
Judgment of:	BAUMANN J
Date of judgment:	28 March 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Assessment of contributions – Consideration of what constitutes the disputed pool – Where the parties were unable to produce a joint balance sheet – Consideration of what value to attribute to two relocatable properties – Uncertainty as to any likely Capital Gains Tax – Where a lack of evidence and submissions has left the Court to regard the ultimate finding of the pool as somewhat “notional” – Further submissions required as to what form of final property adjustment orders can be made to achieve justice and equity to both parties
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79
Cases cited:	Biltoft & Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614 Hickey & Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143 Humphrey & Humphrey (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 640 Townsend & Townsend (1994) 18 Fam LR 505
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	94
Date of last submission/s:	20 December 2023
Date of hearing:	28 & 29 January 2020; 8 – 11 June 2020; 17 & 18 August 2023 and 10 November 2023
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms K Oakley
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Evans Brandon Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr C Minnery (28 & 29 January and 8 – 11 June 2020) Mr G Shoebridge (as he then was) (17 & 18 August and 10 November 2023)
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Naughton McCarthy Family Lawyers

BRC 4211 of 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS HUMPHREY Applicant
AND:	MR HUMPHREY Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 MARCH 2025