Raine & Creed

This case involved an application for property settlement orders by Ms Raine (the wife) against Mr Creed (the husband) in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the division of the parties' assets and liabilities, with particular issues arising regarding alleged waste by the husband, the characterisation of his disability insurance entitlements, and the wife's claim for spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to alter the parties' property interests, assess their respective contributions, and consider the matters set out in section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to decide how to treat the husband's disability insurance payments, whether to make a splitting order for superannuation, and whether to grant the wife's application for spousal maintenance.

The court found that the parties' contributions were equal, resulting in an initial division of 52.5% of the assets to the wife and 47.5% to the husband. The court declined to make a splitting order for superannuation, instead treating it as an adjustment to the overall pool. Regarding the husband's disability insurance payments, the court determined that their present value of $1.6 million should not be treated as property or a financial resource, but rather the ongoing income stream would be considered under section 75(2). The wife successfully established that she was unable to adequately support herself, leading the court to make a spousal maintenance order for a defined period, conditional on the husband continuing to receive his disability insurance payments.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife spousal maintenance of $534 per week until April 2017, conditional on him continuing to receive disability insurance payments due to total disability. The husband was to retain his work equipment, and each party was to keep household items in their possession. The wife was to receive $749,603 from a controlled monies account, with the balance paid to the husband. Leave was granted for applications for costs, and all other applications were dismissed.