Raine & Creed

[2015] FamCAFC 133

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAINE & CREED [2015] FamCAFC 133

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where the appellant seeks to appeal against property settlement orders – Where the treatment of the appellant’s contribution of her pre-cohabitation savings to the purchase of the former matrimonial home was not erroneous as the trial judge recognised and considered the significant financial contribution made by the appellant – Where the trial judge did not err in finding that the respondent’s substantial income enabled the parties to undertake extensive renovations to the former matrimonial home – Where the trial judge erred in failing to provide adequate reasons as to why the parties equally contributed to the welfare of the family in circumstances where the respondent conceded the appellant undertook more of the household tasks – Where the trial judge made an error of principle by having regard to matters which were not matters to be taken into account under s 79(4)(a), (b) or (c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in assessing the contributions of the parties – Where the trial judge was not entitled to take these matters into account against the appellant – Where there was insufficient evidence for the trial judge to make a finding that the respondent would enjoy a substantially greater earning capacity than the appellant – Where the trial judge was entitled to rely on the unchallenged evidence of the financial relationship between the respondent and his new partner in his assessment of the financial circumstances of the respondent – Where the trial judge failed to take into account the appellant’s indirect contribution to the respondent’s entitlement to receive his insurance disability payments when considering s 75(2)(j) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the trial judge was required to determine the property claim unaided or unhindered by his view as to the determination of the spousal maintenance claim – Where there is sufficient error established to require appellate interference – Appeal allowed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the appellant seeks to appeal against spousal maintenance orders – Where the trial judge was unable to make a finding on when the respondent would return to work – Where it was appropriate that the order for spousal maintenance be conditional on the respondent receiving disability insurance payments – Where the trial judge was unable to make a finding that the respondent would have ongoing alternate earning capacity once the disability payments ceased or lessened – Where the order for spousal maintenance to terminate after four years was entirely arbitrary and unsupported by the evidence – Where the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for imposing a four year limitation on the continuation of spousal maintenance – Where there was a clear denial of natural justice by the trial judge in failing to raise the four year limitation with the appellant or her counsel – Appeal allowed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – RE-EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION – Where there…