M v P

In the matter of M v P, the Family Court was tasked with resolving a property settlement dispute between the parties, who had been in a de facto relationship for fourteen years. The relationship ended on 13 March 2004, and the plaintiff, having ceased self-employment in a fashion store, had been a full-time homemaker and parent to the couple’s two children, now aged 13 and 16. Both parties had been previously married, and the defendant, a well-established restauranteur with substantial assets prior to the relationship, was the sole income earner during the relationship. The plaintiff later obtained a Diploma in Counselling but faced challenges in securing employment due to her age and health issues, while the defendant acknowledged that the plaintiff was entitled to a substantial lump sum.

The central legal issues before the court were the determination of whether it was just and equitable to adjust the property of the parties under the Family Law Act, and if so, the appropriate quantum and form of any such adjustment. The court considered the contributions of both parties, both financial and non-financial, to the relationship, as well as the respective circumstances of each party post-separation. The court had to balance the substantial financial assets accumulated by the defendant with the plaintiff’s contributions to the relationship and her current circumstances, including her age and employment prospects.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that it was just and equitable to make an adjustment of the property of the parties. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a lump sum of $650,000 and ownership of a vehicle valued at $24,500, in addition to her superannuation entitlement. The court highlighted the importance of considering the non-financial contributions of the plaintiff, such as her role as a homemaker and parent, alongside the financial contributions of the defendant. The court also considered the age and health of both parties, as well as the plaintiff’s post-separation efforts to re-enter the workforce.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff $650,000 and transfer the legal ownership of a vehicle currently in her possession. The court also directed the transfer of $6,270 from the Minoan Investments Superannuation Fund to a fund nominated by the plaintiff. The court reserved the questions of interest on the award and the costs of the action for further submissions by the parties.