Raine & Creed

In the case of Raine & Creed, the appellant, Mrs. Raine, appealed against the property settlement and spousal maintenance orders made by the trial judge, Justice Aldridge. The primary issues involved the fair division of the parties' property and the determination of spousal maintenance. The court had to consider the contributions of both parties, including financial and non-financial contributions, as well as the future earning capacity of the respondent.

The court found that while the trial judge had appropriately recognised and considered the appellant's financial contribution to the purchase of the matrimonial home, there were errors in the assessment of the parties' overall contributions. The trial judge had failed to adequately explain why the parties were found to equally contribute to the welfare of the family despite the appellant's significant household responsibilities. Additionally, the trial judge had taken into account factors that were not permissible under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court also noted that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the respondent would have a substantially greater earning capacity than the appellant. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court found that the trial judge had made several errors, including the arbitrary setting of a four-year limit on maintenance payments without adequate reasons and failing to consider the appellant's indirect contribution to the respondent's disability insurance payments.

The appeal was allowed on both property settlement and spousal maintenance grounds. The court set aside the original orders and made new orders for spousal maintenance and property settlement. The court determined that the appellant should receive 60% of the property settlement and spousal maintenance payments of $534 per week, conditional on the respondent continuing to receive disability insurance payments. The court found that it was not appropriate to order variations in spousal maintenance payments based on yearly changes in the consumer price index. The court did not make an order for costs against either party but granted costs certificates to both parties to be paid from the Federal Government.