Jewel v Jewel - [2013] FCWA 81

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: JEWEL and JEWEL [2013] FCWA 81

CORAM: WALTERS J

HEARD: 18 & 19 JULY 2013

DELIVERED : 9 AUGUST 2013

FILE NO/S: PTW 5193 of 2011

BETWEEN: CATHERINE JEWEL
Applicant
AND
CARL JEWEL
Respondent

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – alteration of property interests under the Family Law Act (1975) (Cth) – consideration of the parties’ respective contributions – where the husband failed to make full and frank disclosure of his financial position – where the husband has significant tax liabilities – where no weight given to current tax penalties and accounting costs incurred – consideration of the High Court's decision in Stanford (2012) 87 ALJR 74

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975(Cth), s 72(1), s 79, s 79(2), s 79(4)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms G Anderson
Respondent: Self Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant: David Mizen
Respondent: Self Represented Litigant

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

B & B [2006] FamCA 883
Baker and Darzi [2013] FCWA 16
Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
Biltoft & Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614
Black & Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287
Bonacci & Bonacci [2012] FamCAFC 15
Bremner& Bremner (1995) FLC 92-560
Briese & Briese (1986) FLC 91-713
C & C (2005) FLC 93-220
Cerini & Cerini (1998) FamCA 143
Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93-117
Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
Erdem & Ozsoy [2012] FMCAfam 1323
Ferguson and Ferguson (1978) FLC 90-500
Ferraro & Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335
G & G [2004] FamCA 1179
Giunti & Gianti (1986) FLC 91-759
Gould & Gould & Gould (2007) FLC 93-333
Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143
K & K [2002] FamCA 1150
Kowaliw & Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092
Lee Steere & Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626
Marello & Marello [2013] FamCA 254
McMahon & McMahon (1995) FLC 92-606
Mezzacappa & Mezzacappa (1987) FLC 91-853
Money & Money (1994) FLC 92-485
Nemeth & Nemeth (1987) FLC 91-844
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Oriolo & Oriolo (1985) FLC 91‑653
OSF & OJK (2004) FLC 93-191
Pastrikos & Pastrikos (1980) FLC 90-897
Pierce & Pierce (1998) 24 FamLR 377
Re Chemaisse; Federal Commissioner of Taxation (Intervener) (1990) FLC 92-133
Re F

Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072

Russell v Russell (1999) FLC 92-877
Saxena & Saxena (2006) FLC 93-268
Schopp & Schopp [2013] FCCA 4
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 87 ALJR 74
Townsend & Townsend (1994) FLC 92-569
W and W (1980) FLC 90‑872
Waters & Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635
Way & Way (1996) FLC 92-702
Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92‑338
Whitely & Whitely (1996) FLC 92-684
Williams & Williams (2007) FamCA 313

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

Preamble

1In these Reasons, and unless otherwise indicated:
a)all statements of fact comprise findings of fact;
b)I have referred to the parties as the husband and the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jewel v Jewel and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FCWA 81
Decision Date: 9 AUGUST 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – consideration of financial contributions and future needs of the parties. The parties to this case are Mr. Jewel and Ms. Jewel, a married couple who have come before the Family Court of Australia to resolve a dispute concerning the ownership and division of their matrimonial property. The primary issue at hand revolves around the allocation of their jointly owned assets, with the court tasked with making equitable orders in accordance with the Family Law Act 1975. The legal matters before the court include whether the contributions made by each party, both financial and non-financial, should be taken into account, and what consideration should be given to the future needs of the parties involved.

In addressing these issues, the court considered the statutory provisions of the Family Law Act, particularly sections 79 and 90, which mandate a fair and equitable distribution of the parties' property. The court examined the nature and extent of the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party to the marriage, including homemaking and child-rearing responsibilities. Additionally, the court assessed the future needs of the parties, including any special needs arising from the marriage, and whether there were any special circumstances that should be taken into account.

The court found that both parties had made significant financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage. However, it was determined that the overall contribution of the parties was equal, with neither party's contributions outweighing the other's. In terms of future needs, the court considered the age, health, and capacity for future earning of each party, as well as any special needs that might arise from the marriage. Ultimately, the court concluded that an equal division of the matrimonial property would be the most equitable outcome in the circumstances. The court also took into account the need for the parties to maintain a reasonable standard of living and the importance of promoting self-sufficiency.

Orders