NEVILLE and BOWEN - [2025] FCWA 226

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: NEVILLE and BOWEN [2025] FCWA 226
CORAM: O'BRIEN J
HEARD: [REDACTED]
DELIVERED : 24 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S: 7350 of 2016
BETWEEN: MS NEVILLE
Applicant
AND
MR BOWEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

PROPERTY - Where during a long marriage the parties were both injured in a serious motor vehicle accident and individually received damages awards as a result – Where the wife alleges relevant family violence both before and after the motor vehicle accident – Where the injuries suffered by the husband caused behavioural changes, which impacted on the contributions necessarily made by the wife – Where subsequent to separation the wife acquired interests in trusts originating at the instigation of her late father – Where both parties contend for significant "addbacks" - Where those contentions would have been untenable even prior to recent legislative amendments and the decision in Shinohara & Shinohara - Discussion of relevant principles, particularly in relation to the treatment of paid legal fees and interim property distributions – Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms T Farmer SC
Respondent	:	Dr R Ingleby

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Mills Oakley
Respondent	:	Kim Wilson & Co

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Aleksovski v Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705
Barnell & Barnell (2020) FLC 93-961
Benson & Drury (2020) FLC 93-998
Blandford & Esmore [2022] FedCFamC1A 67
Bulleen v Bulleen (2010) 43 Fam LR 489
C & C [1998] FamCA 143
Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204
Edinger v Duy (2023) 68 Fam LR 55
Falcken & Weule [2019] FamCAFC 140
Fields & Smith (2015) FLC 93-638
Gadhavi v Gadhavi (2023) 67 Fam LR 174
Gorga and Gorga [2020] FCWA 51
Hurst & Hurst (2018) FLC 93-851
Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Khademollah and Khademollah (2000) FLC 93-050
Pickford v Pickford and Anor (2024) 70 Fam LR 85
Ryan v Zekas [2020] WASC 124
Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193
Trevi & Trevi (2018) FLC 93-858
Vass v Vass (2015) 53 Fam LR 373

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES' NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Neville and Bowen has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

This copy of the Court's Reason for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 312(b) of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)) or to record a variation of the orders pursuant to r 311 of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in…

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 NEVILLE and BOWEN

Details

AGLC: NEVILLE and BOWEN [2025] FCWA 226
Case: [2025] FCWA 226
Decision Date: 24 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Neville and Bowen, the court was tasked with the division of property between a long-married couple who were both injured in a motor vehicle accident. The wife alleged ongoing family violence both before and after the accident, which had significant impacts on their relationship and her ability to contribute to the family. The husband's injuries resulted in behavioural changes that affected his capacity to work and thus impacted the wife's contributions. Post-separation, the wife acquired interests in trusts established by her late father, which further complicated the property settlement.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the extent to which the pre-existing family violence and the post-accident behavioural changes should be considered in the property settlement. The court also had to determine the valuation and contribution of the wife's interests in the trusts, as well as the implications of any alleged "addbacks" in the context of recent legislative changes and relevant case law. The court needed to balance the principles of fairness and equality against the specific circumstances of the parties and their contributions to the family.

The court held that the wife's allegations of family violence and the husband's behavioural changes were relevant factors to consider in the property division. However, the court found that the contentions for significant "addbacks" were not supported by the evidence, particularly in light of the recent legislative amendments and the decision in relevant case law. The court ultimately concluded that the wife's interests in the trusts should be valued appropriately but did not warrant the significant "addbacks" sought by either party. The court ordered a fair and equitable division of the property, taking into account all relevant factors.

Orders