Macarthur & Macarthur (No 5) - [2023] FedCFamC1F 964

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Macarthur & Macarthur (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 964

File number: BRC 6154 of 2020

Judgment of: REES J

Date of judgment: 13 November 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Division of asset pool – Spousal maintenance – Child support departure – Determination of beneficial ownership – Characterisation of lump sum payment – Applicant seeks superannuation splitting order – Allegations of maintenance arrears

Legislation:
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), ss 117, 117(4)(c), 123(1)(a), 124

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 72, 124

Cases cited: Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 176

Date of hearing: 31 October, 1 & 2 November 2023

Place: Sydney

For the Applicant: Litigant in Person

For the Respondent: Litigant in Person
ORDERS

BRC 6154 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS MACARTHUR

Applicant

AND:
MR MACARTHUR

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

REES J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 NOVEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That the husband and the wife do all things required to effect the distribution of the funds held on their behalf in the E Trust Account as to $129,340 to the wife and the balance to the husband.
2.That other than as provided in these orders, each party is solely entitled to all other property in his or her possession, including but not limited to any superannuation entitlement.
3.That the wife’s application for spousal maintenance is dismissed.
4.That all orders for the payment of spousal maintenance are discharged as at the date to which they stand paid.
5.That the wife’s application pursuant to s 123(1)(a) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) is dismissed.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 a pseudonym Macarthur & Macarthur has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REES J:

Ms Macarthur (“the wife”) and Mr Macarthur (“the husband”) commenced co-habitation either in July 2013, according to the wife or in November 2013 according to the husband. Nothing turns on this dispute.
The wife was born in the United States of America (“USA”) and the husband is Australian.
They married in 2014 and they have a daughter, X, born 2017 who lives with her mother.
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.

Continue reading Macarthur & Macarthur (No 5)

Details

AGLC: Macarthur & Macarthur (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 964
Case: [2023] FedCFamC1F 964
Decision Date: 13 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Macarthur & Macarthur (No 5) involved a dispute between Ms Macarthur and Mr Macarthur concerning the division of their asset pool, spousal maintenance, and child support. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant sought an order for the division of funds in a trust account, spousal maintenance, and a superannuation splitting order. Additionally, the applicant alleged that the respondent had not paid maintenance arrears. The respondent opposed the application for spousal maintenance and superannuation splitting.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to spousal maintenance and child support, the characterisation of a lump sum payment, and the determination of beneficial ownership of the funds in the trust account. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 79 and 90 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and the case law interpreting these provisions. The court also needed to determine the appropriate distribution of the funds in the trust account and whether the applicant was entitled to spousal maintenance or child support.

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to spousal maintenance as she had not established that she was unable to maintain herself to the standard of living she had enjoyed during the marriage. The court also found that the lump sum payment was not a property settlement payment but rather a child support payment. The court determined that the applicant was not entitled to a superannuation splitting order as the applicant had not demonstrated that the order was in the best interests of the children. The court also found that the applicant had not established that the respondent had failed to pay maintenance arrears.

The court ordered that the funds in the trust account be distributed to the applicant and the respondent, with the applicant receiving $129,340 and the balance going to the respondent. The court dismissed the applicant's application for spousal maintenance and child support and discharged all orders for the payment of spousal maintenance. The court also dismissed the applicant's application for a superannuation splitting order. The form of the order was subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors or to record a variation to the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

BRC 6154 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS MACARTHUR

Applicant

AND:

MR MACARTHUR

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

REES J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 NOVEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS:

1. That the husband and the wife do all things required to effect the distribution of the funds held on their behalf in the E Trust Account as to $129,340 to the wife and the balance to the husband.

2. That other than as provided in these orders, each party is solely entitled to all other property in his or her possession, including but not limited to any superannuation entitlement.

3. That the wife’s application for spousal maintenance is dismissed.

4. That all orders for the payment of spousal maintenance are discharged as at the date to which they stand paid.

5. That the wife’s application pursuant to s 123(1)(a) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) is dismissed.

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).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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:	BRC 6154 of 2020
Judgment of:	REES J
Date of judgment:	13 November 2023
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Division of asset pool – Spousal maintenance – Child support departure – Determination of beneficial ownership – Characterisation of lump sum payment – Applicant seeks superannuation splitting order – Allegations of maintenance arrears
Legislation:	Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), ss 117, 117(4)(c), 123(1)(a), 124 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 72, 124
Cases cited:	Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	176
Date of hearing:	31 October, 1 & 2 November 2023
Place:	Sydney
For the Applicant:	Litigant in Person
For the Respondent:	Litigant in Person

BRC 6154 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS MACARTHUR Applicant
AND:	MR MACARTHUR Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	REES J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 NOVEMBER 2023