Legal Research
Cases
NUNN & MAYFIELD

NUNN & MAYFIELD

Case [2019] FCCA 542 8 March 2019

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NUNN & MAYFIELD

[2019] FCCA 542

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – where both parties seek orders for final property distribution – where a two pool approach applied – where assets acquired by the parties post-separation considered – where the husband made significant initial contributions – where the husband made greater financial contributions throughout relationship – where the parties unsuccessfully underwent four cycles of IVF during the marriage.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.75, 79, 80, 81, 117
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.136

Cases cited:

AJB Potter v LJ Potter [2003] NZCA 103
Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116; (2014) 49 Fam LR 387
Biltoft and Biltoft [1995] FamCA 45; (1995) FLC 92-614; 19 Fam LR 39
Black Uhlans Inc v New South Wales Crime Commission & Ors [2002] NSWSC 1060
Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81; (1984) 155 CLR 242
Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91; (2014) FLC 93-592; 51 FamLR 176
C & C (2005) FLC 93-220
Cozanitis v Cozanitis [1979] FamCA 24; (1979) 34 FLR 523; (1978) 4 Fam LR 709; (1979) FLC 90-643
Currie v Hamilton (1984) 1 NSWLR 687
Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154; (2014) 50 Fam LR 244
Edgehill & Edgehill [2007] FamCA 1102
Fielding and Nichol [2014] FCWA 77
G & G [2000] FamCA 1075
Giles & Giles & Anor [2018] FCCA 194
Gollings & Scott [2007] FamCA 397; (2007) FLC 93-319
Grier & Malphas [2016] FamCAFC 84; (2016) 55 FamLR 107
Hauff & Hauff [1986] FamCA 16; (1986) 10 Fam LR 1076; (1986) FLC 91-747
Hearne & Hearne [2015] FamCAFC 178
Hickey & Hickey & Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) FLC 93-143
In the Marriage of Burke (1981) FLC 91-055
In the Marriage of Crapp and Crapp (No 2) [1979] FamCA 17; (1979) 5 Fam LR 47; (1979) FLC 90-615
JEL & DDF [2000] FamCA 1353; (2001) FLC 93,075
Juliet & Juliet & Anor [2013] FamCA 497
Kardos v Sarbutt [2006] NSWCA 11; (2006) 34 Fam LR 550
Kessey & Kessey [1994] FamCA 162; (1994) FLC 92-495; 18 FamLR 149
Kowalski and Kowalski (1993) FLC 92-342
Manolis & Manolis (No 2) [2011] FamCAFC 105
Maria Saravinovksa v Krste (Chris) Saravinovski; Chris Saravinovski v George Saravinovski (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 964
Murtagh v Murtagh [2013] NSWSC 926
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Norman & Norman [2010] FamCAFC 66
AJO & GRO [2005] FamCA 195; (2005) FLC 93-218
Parker v Parker (1993) 16 Fam LR 863; (1993) DFC 95-139
Pierce & Pierce [1998] FamCA 74; (1999) FLC 92-844
PJM & STM [2005] FamCA 1245; (2005) FLC 93-242
Rockman & Rockman [2014] FCCA 1966
SJS & NS [2005] FamCA 66; (2005) FLC 93-214
S & S [2004] FamCA 201
Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52
T & T (Pension Splitting) [2006] FamCA 207; (2006) FLC 93-263
Wells &…

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 NUNN & MAYFIELD

Details

AGLC: NUNN & MAYFIELD [2019] FCCA 542
Case: [2019] FCCA 542
Decision Date: 8 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Nunn & Mayfield*, heard before Harper J, the parties sought final property distribution orders. The dispute concerned the division of assets acquired by the parties both during and after their marriage, with the court applying a two-pool approach to its considerations.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriate division of the parties' assets, taking into account their respective contributions throughout the relationship and post-separation. The court was required to assess the significance of the husband's initial and ongoing financial contributions, as well as the impact of the parties' unsuccessful attempts at IVF during the marriage on the overall property settlement.

Harper J's reasoning focused on the principles of property adjustment under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court acknowledged the husband's substantial initial contributions and his greater financial contributions throughout the marriage. While the IVF cycles were noted as a significant undertaking for the parties, the court's ultimate determination of the property division was primarily guided by the financial contributions and the overall circumstances of the parties. The court ordered a division of the property.

Orders