Parsa and Parsa and Ors - [2019] FCWA 208

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
CHILD SUPPORT (ASSESSMENT) ACT 1989
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: PARSA and PARSA & ORS [2019] FCWA 208
CORAM: TYSON J
HEARD: 17, 18 and 19 JULY 2019
DELIVERED : 23 SEPTEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S: PTW 2606 of 2016
BETWEEN: MR PARSA
Applicant
AND
MS PARSA
Respondent
AND
LAW FIRM A
Interveners

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY - Long marriage – Approach to be adopted – Post separation inheritance - Two pool approach – Assessment as to contributions - Assessment of section 75(2) factors - Where the husband’s previous solicitors have intervened in relation to outstanding legal fees – Case turns on its own facts

CHILD SUPPORT – Child support departure order sought by consent - Case turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Mrs Farmer
Interveners	:	Mr Davies

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Self Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Calverley Johnston
Interveners	:	Law Firm A

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

Biltoft & Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614
Bonnici & Bonnici (1992) FLC 92-272
Calvin & McTier (2017) FLC 93-785
Chorn & Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204
Dickons & Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244
Froth & Froth [2007] FamCA 1608
Goodwin & Goodwin Alpe (1991) FLC 92-192
Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490
Holland & Holland (2017) FLC 93-798
In re LC (Children) [2014] UKSC 1
Khademollah & Khademollah (2000) FLC 93-050
Kowaliw & Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092
Lenehan & Lenehan (1987) FLC 91-814
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072
Reynolds & Reynolds [1990] FamCA 50
Sinclair & Sinclair [2012] FamCA 388
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Trevi & Trevi (2018) FLC 93-858
Vokic & Vlass [2012] FamCA 56
Zaruba & Zaruba (2017) FLC 93-776
Zyk & Zyk (1995) FLC 92-644

TYSON J:

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 Parsa and Parsa & Ors 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 Parsa] [“the husband”] and [Ms Parsa] [“the wife”] were married for approximately 20 years, separating on a final basis in 2016. From 2011, the parties’ marriage was strained: they were effectively living separate lives under the one roof. They have since divorced. The husband and wife have four sons, one of whom is now an adult.
2The husband and wife are unable to agree on the division of property following the breakdown of their marriage. As a result, the Court is required to make a determination. Complicating the dispute, is the fact the parties do not agree on the asset pool.
3These proceedings are governed by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).…

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 Parsa and Parsa and Ors 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: [2019] FCWA 208
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Parsa and Parsa and Ors was before the Family Court of Australia, with the parties being Parsa, the applicant, and multiple respondents. The central dispute in this case revolved around the division of property following the separation of the couple and issues pertaining to child support. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate approach to take in the context of a long marriage, specifically focusing on the principles of the two-pool approach and the assessment of contributions made by each party. Additionally, the court considered the factors outlined in section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975. The case also involved an issue concerning the husband's former solicitors who intervened regarding unpaid legal fees.

The primary legal issues before the court were the application of the two-pool approach to the division of property, the appropriate weight to be given to the various factors in section 75(2), and the handling of the intervention by the husband's previous solicitors regarding outstanding legal fees. The court was also required to consider a child support departure order that was sought by consent between the parties.

In delivering its judgment, the court adopted a detailed analysis of the parties' contributions, both financial and non-financial, to their shared property and the overall family unit. The court emphasised that each case must turn on its own facts and declined to establish a rigid formula for the division of property. It considered the duration of the marriage, the contributions made by each party, and the future needs of both parties. The court highlighted that the two-pool approach was a tool to be used in appropriate circumstances, and not a blanket rule. The intervention by the husband's previous solicitors was also evaluated, with the court deciding on an equitable resolution to the issue of unpaid legal fees. Regarding the child support departure order, the court accepted the consent terms proposed by the parties.

The court ultimately ordered that the property be divided in a manner that reflected the unique circumstances of the marriage and the contributions made by each party. It also determined the amount to be paid to the husband's former solicitors for outstanding legal fees. The child support departure order was approved as per the terms consented to by the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [205]

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.