Meek and Anson - [2016] FCCA 2502

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEEK & ANSON

[2016] FCCA 2502

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property settlement – five year marriage – no children –greater contributions by the husband – financial resources held by the husband overseas –adverse impact of marriage on income and income earning capacity of the wife.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.75, 79, 90

Lee & Hutton [2013] FamCA 745
Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757

Applicant:

MS MEEK

Respondent:

MR ANSON

File Number:

CAC 680 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Hughes

Hearing dates:

26, 27 & 28 October 2015

Date of Last Submission:

28 October 2015

Delivered at:

Canberra

Delivered on:

29 September 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr O’Shannessy

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Robinson McGuinness

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Givney

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Walsh & Blair

ORDERS

Within 60 days of the date of these orders the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $691,200 (“the payment”).
In the event of default in the payment, the husband shall forthwith sell the property known as (Property A) with the proceeds of sale to be allocated as follows:
(a)first, to pay any commission and other costs of sale;
(b)secondly, to discharge any mortgage or other encumbrances on the title to the property;
(c)thirdly, to make the payment to the wife along with interest calculated at the family law scale from the date the payment was due until it is made; and
(d)fourthly, the balance to the husband.
Except as provided by these orders, each party is hereby declared to be the sole owner of all items of property in their possession and choses in action in their name at the date of these orders.
Otherwise, all extant applications are hereby dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Meek & Anson is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 680 of 2014

MS MEEK

Applicant

And

MR ANSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are property settlement proceedings after a five year marriage.
The parties were married on (omitted) 2008 and separated on 23 March 2013. It was the first marriage for both and they have no children together.
The husband made the overwhelming financial contributions to the property. The wife argued that her financial position has been significantly adversely affected by the marriage because she left a well-paid job in Sydney to live with the husband in (country omitted) and has been unable to obtain employment at a similar level since.

Background

The husband was born in (country omitted). He grew up on a family farm in (country omitted). He has an interest in five tracts of farming land in (country omitted) as well as shares and cash in bank accounts in (country omitted). He moved permanently to Australia in 1994 and became an Australian citizen in 2008.
The wife is an Australian citizen by birth.
The parties commenced a relationship in April 2004.…

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 Meek and Anson

Details

AGLC: Meek and Anson [2016] FCCA 2502
Case: [2016] FCCA 2502
Decision Date: 29 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Meek and Anson*, heard before Judge Hughes, the dispute concerned the division of property between a husband and wife. The court was tasked with determining the final orders regarding the financial settlement between the parties.

The central legal issue before the court was to establish the terms of the property settlement, including the quantum of any payment to be made by one party to the other, and the mechanism for ensuring such payment. The court also needed to clarify the ownership of remaining assets and resolve any outstanding applications.

Judge Hughes ordered that the husband pay the wife a sum of $691,200 within 60 days. In the event of default, the husband was directed to sell a specified property, with the proceeds to be applied first to sale costs, then to discharge any encumbrances, followed by the payment to the wife with interest, and any remaining balance to the husband. The orders further declared each party to be the sole owner of property in their possession and choses in action, and dismissed all other extant applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

Within 60 days of the date of these orders the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $691,200 (“the payment”).

In the event of default in the payment, the husband shall forthwith sell the property known as (Property A) with the proceeds of sale to be allocated as follows:

(a) first, to pay any commission and other costs of sale;

(b) secondly, to discharge any mortgage or other encumbrances on the title to the property;

(c) thirdly, to make the payment to the wife along with interest calculated at the family law scale from the date the payment was due until it is made; and

(d) fourthly, the balance to the husband.

Except as provided by these orders, each party is hereby declared to be the sole owner of all items of property in their possession and choses in action in their name at the date of these orders.

Otherwise, all extant applications are hereby dismissed.

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.