Marcel and Garrigan

The Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between Mr Marcel (the applicant) and Ms Garrigan (the respondent) following the breakdown of their de facto relationship of approximately ten years. The core of the dispute involved determining the asset pool for division, particularly concerning a significant inheritance received by the applicant and the parties' respective superannuation entitlements.

The court was required to determine how to treat assets derived from the applicant's inheritance, whether the parties' superannuation entitlements should be included in the asset pool, and how to assess the contributions of each party to the relationship, given a considerable disparity in initial assets. Furthermore, the court needed to consider adjustments to the property division based on factors such as the parties' age difference, the applicant's health issues, and their post-separation re-partnering, to ensure the final orders were just and equitable.

In its reasoning, the court accepted the applicant's submission that assets traceable to his inheritance should be quarantined from the general asset pool, provided they were not directly or indirectly contributed to by the respondent. The court also determined that the parties' superannuation entitlements, being modest and treated by the parties as separate assets, should be retained by each party individually. The court found that while the applicant introduced significantly more valuable assets at the commencement of the relationship, the respondent made substantial non-financial contributions through household duties and childcare, including the permanent care of her children. Consequently, the court determined the applicant was entitled to 67.5 per cent of the main asset pool and the respondent to 32.5 per cent.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent a sum of $810,654. The respondent was to pay certain sums to a company and transfer her shares in that company to the applicant. The respondent was also to indemnify the applicant against liabilities related to her business. The applicant was declared the sole owner of his shareholdings in other companies and was to indemnify the respondent against liabilities related to those companies. The court also made orders regarding the division of other assets and liabilities, with each party to retain their respective possessions and be solely liable for associated debts. Costs were reserved.