NORTHAM and NORTHAM - [2019] FCWA 240

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: NORTHAM and NORTHAM [2019] FCWA 240
CORAM: O'BRIEN J
HEARD: 7 & 8 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED : 15 NOVEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S: PTW 6804 of 2015
BETWEEN: MR NORTHAM
Applicant
AND
MS NORTHAM
Respondent

Catchwords:

PROPERTY - Long marriage - Assessment of contributions - Prospective factors - Where wife has ongoing supportive responsibilities for an adult child of the marriage who suffers from a disability - Turns on its own facts.

ADULT CHILD MAINTENANCE - Where child in question is disabled but evidence as to his earning capacity, reasonable needs, property and financial resources of the child is inadequate - Turns on its own facts.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr Brooks
Respondent	:	Ms Bouwman

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	HFM Legal
Respondent	:	WL & KJ Everett

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

C & C [1998] FamCA 143
Chorn & Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204
Cosgrove & Cosgrove (1996) FLC 92-700
Kowaliw & Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092
Paul & Paul (2012) FLC 93-505
Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173

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 Northam & Northam has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1[Mr Northam] (“the husband”) and [Ms Northam] (“the wife”) have been unable to agree on the division of their property. They also disagree as to the needs of their adult son, [R], for whom the wife seeks payments of maintenance.

Background

2The husband was born in 1956 and is a [car salesperson]. The wife was born in 1958 and is a [community worker].
3The parties began their relationship in 1984, and lived together for a short period before they married in December 1986. They separated in November 2014 and are now divorced. There are three adult children of the marriage; R, who was born in 1993, is the youngest.
4R is autistic. He lives with the wife in the home jointly owned by the parties. He has not held any steady employment since 2013.
5The husband lives with his elderly mother in her home.
6The jointly owned home is the primary asset available for division between the parties. The wife seeks to retain it; the husband seeks its sale and a division of the proceeds.

Relief sought by the parties

7To their credit, the parties conferred as directed at the Status Hearing and filed prior to trial a Minute setting out the orders which can be made by consent. In short, it is agreed that each party should retain his or her own personal property, chattels and superannuation, and responsibility for personal liabilities. Neither party seeks a superannuation splitting order.
8The husband seeks the orders set out in a Minute filed…

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 NORTHAM and NORTHAM

Details

AGLC: NORTHAM and NORTHAM [2019] FCWA 240
Case: [2019] FCWA 240
Decision Date: 15 NOVEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Northam and Northam came before the Family Court of Australia, where the central issue was the division of property between the parties following the dissolution of their marriage. The dispute involved the assessment of the wife's contributions to the marriage, particularly her ongoing supportive responsibilities towards their adult child who has a disability. The court had to determine how these responsibilities should influence the equitable distribution of the couple's assets.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the weight to be given to the wife's non-financial contributions, specifically her care for their disabled adult child, and the impact of this care on the assessment of her overall contribution to the marriage. Additionally, the court needed to consider the adequacy of the evidence regarding the disabled child's earning capacity, reasonable needs, property, and financial resources, and how this affected the spousal maintenance and property settlement.

The court carefully weighed the evidence and testimonies presented. It concluded that the wife's significant and ongoing responsibilities towards their disabled adult child were a crucial factor in the overall assessment of her contributions. The court recognised the importance of these responsibilities in the property settlement and ordered an equitable distribution of the assets. The decision emphasised that such cases turn on their own specific facts, and each case must be evaluated individually.

The final orders of the court, detailed in [113], included a specific division of property and an arrangement for spousal maintenance that took into account the wife's care for the disabled adult child. This ruling highlighted the need for a nuanced approach in property settlements involving long-term caregiving responsibilities.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [113]

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.