JOBLING & SLADE - [2020] FamCA 419

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JOBLING & SLADE

[2020] FamCA 419

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – De Facto Relationship – where a just and equitable result requires alteration of the parties’ property interests – where the husband asserts that his contributions over the relationship should be assessed as greater, based on his larger initial capital contribution – where there is dispute over the appropriate method for valuing the family home – where the wife seeks spousal maintenance for a period of three years – whether any spousal maintenance should be capitalised – where both parties in this relationship of 16 years contributed equally to the relationship – where expert evidence as to the value of the property is accepted – where wife entitled to 62.5 per cent and husband entitled to 37.5 per cent of net non-superannuation assets – where superannuation assets equalised – where husband ordered to pay spousal maintenance for a period of three years – where spousal maintenance capitalised.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Evidence Act (Cth) ss 55, 56, 76, 79

Bevan & Bevan (2013) 49 Fam LR 387
Branchflower & Branchflower (1980) FLC 90-857
Burlock & Burlock [2009] FamCAFC 165
Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-395
Collingridge & Aiolfi [2019] FamCAFC 88
Commonwealth v Milledge (1953) 90 CLR 157
Davey v Lee (1990) 13 Fam LR 688
DJM v JLM (1998) FLC 92-816
Garrett v Garrett (1984) FLC 91,539
Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490
Harrell & Nesland [2016] FamCAFC 122
In the Marriage of Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600
In the Marriage of Smith RH & Smith JW (1991) FLC 92-261
In the Marriage of Wilson (1989) 13 FamLR 205
O’Brien & O’Brien (1983) FLC 91-316
Quinn v Quinn (1979) FLC 90-677
Spano & Spano (1979) FLC 90-707
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Vaughan & Vaughan (1981) FLC 91-066
Vautin & Vautin (1998) FLC 92-827
Wilson & Wilson (1989/90) FLC 92-033

APPLICANT:

Mr Jobling

RESPONDENT:

Ms Slade

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

11526

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

1 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

McEvoy J

HEARING DATE:

14 – 17 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Whitchurch

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Argent Law

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Hall

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Robert Halliday & Associates

orders

Within 7 days the parties submit an agreed minute of orders giving effect to the division of the assets of the relationship and the payment of capitalised spousal maintenance provided for in these reasons, together with the matters about which they are in agreement.
The matter be adjourned to a date to be fixed if all outstanding matters are not able to be agreed.
There be liberty to apply.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jobling & Slade has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family…

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 JOBLING & SLADE

Details

AGLC: JOBLING & SLADE [2020] FamCA 419
Case: [2020] FamCA 419
Decision Date: 1 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Jobling & Slade*, McEvoy J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the division of assets and the payment of spousal maintenance between the parties to a relationship. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate distribution of property and the quantum of spousal maintenance to be paid.

The central legal issues before the court were the characterisation of certain assets and liabilities, the assessment of the parties' respective contributions to the relationship and the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of the matrimonial property, and the consideration of the relevant factors under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) for the purpose of making a just and equitable division of the parties' financial resources. Furthermore, the court was required to determine the need for and the capacity to pay spousal maintenance, and if so, the appropriate amount and duration.

McEvoy J applied established principles of Australian family law, including the principles of asset division and spousal maintenance as outlined in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court undertook a detailed analysis of the parties' financial circumstances, their contributions (both financial and non-financial), and their future needs and capacities. The judgment reflects a careful balancing of these competing considerations to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.

The court ordered that within seven days, the parties were to submit an agreed minute of orders reflecting the division of assets and the payment of capitalised spousal maintenance as determined in the reasons, along with any other agreed matters. If all outstanding issues could not be resolved by agreement, the matter was to be adjourned to a date to be fixed, with liberty to apply.

Orders

Orders of the court

Within 7 days the parties submit an agreed minute of orders giving effect to the division of the assets of the relationship and the payment of capitalised spousal maintenance provided for in these reasons, together with the matters about which they are in agreement.

The matter be adjourned to a date to be fixed if all outstanding matters are not able to be agreed.

There be liberty to apply.

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.