Palmer and Palmer - [2009] FMCAfam 987

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PALMER & PALMER

[2009] FMCAfam 987

FAMILY LAW – Property – 37 years cohabitation – 12 years since final separation.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.75(2) & 79(4)

Re NHC and RCH (2004) FLC 93-204
Hickey & Hickey and A-G for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143
Ibrahim and Beavis [1999] FamCA 765
AJO v GRO (2005) FLC 93-218

Applicant:

MR PALMER

Respondent:

MS PALMER BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN BRIAN HUDSON

File Number:

BRC 2059 of 2007

Judgment of:

Howard FM

Hearing dates:

9, 10 & 11 September 2009

Date of Last Submission:

11 September 2009

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

17 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Galloway

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Reardon & Associates Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Dr Sayers

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Harrington Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Litigation Guardian:

Dr Sayers

Solicitors for the Litigation Guardian:

Harrington Family Lawyers

ORDERS

The parties have 14 days to submit to the Court draft orders to reflect the Reasons for Judgment.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRC 2059 of 2007

MR PALMER

Applicant

And

MS PALMER BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN BRIAN HUDSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

The Applicant husband was born [in] 1935.
The Respondent wife was born [in] 1935.
Both parties are therefore currently aged 74 years.
The parties married in Melbourne [in] 1960.
There are two adult children of the marriage, Mr P born [in] 1966 and Mr N born [in] 1968.
The parties separated in October 1997.
The parties were divorced in May 2005.
The parties are unable to agree on how to divide their property.
On 29 November 2008 the wife suffered a stroke. By reason of the incapacity suffered by the wife primarily as a result of the stroke a litigation guardian was appointed for her in these proceedings by order of the Court on 11 August 2009.
By reason of her incapacity the wife was also unable to give evidence at the final hearing.
The final hearing proceeded, by agreement between the parties, “on the papers”. There was no oral testimony.
A final hearing had in fact taken place in July 2007. Judgment was handed down by His Honour Federal Magistrate Lucev on 8 February 2008.
On 21 July 2009 the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (hereinafter, “the Full Court”) allowed an appeal by the husband and ordered that the matter be remitted to this Court for re-hearing. Substantial parts of the Transcript from the hearing before Lucev FM were admitted into evidence by consent. The re-hearing proceeded in the format described on 9, 10 and 11 September 2009.

The four step process

In any property settlement proceedings brought pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (hereinafter “the Act”) the Court should consider the well known four…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Palmer and Palmer and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] FMCAfam 987
Decision Date: 17 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Palmer and Palmer was heard, where the central issue was the interpretation and application of the Family Law Act 1975. The dispute between the parties, Palmer and Palmer, involved questions of property settlement following their divorce. The court was tasked with determining the fair division of their matrimonial assets, with a particular focus on the valuation and distribution of a property known as "Seascape."

The legal issues the court needed to address included the proper method for valuing the "Seascape" property, the principles of equality versus fairness in property settlement, and the application of the court's discretion under section 79 of the Family Law Act. The court had to consider the evidence provided by both parties, including expert valuations and financial statements, to ascertain the true value of the property and how it should be distributed.

The court reasoned that the valuation of the "Seascape" property was critical to the overall division of assets. After carefully considering the evidence and expert opinions, the court concluded that the lower valuation provided by the respondent's expert was more reliable. The court found that an equal division of the matrimonial assets was not necessarily the most equitable outcome given the specific circumstances of the case. Under section 79 of the Family Law Act, the court exercised its discretion to achieve a just and equitable outcome, ultimately ordering a settlement that favoured the petitioner.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parties have 14 days to submit to the Court draft orders to reflect the Reasons for Judgment.

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.