Rankin & Rankin

The appeal concerned the property settlement, spousal maintenance, and child support orders made by the Family Court in the case of Rankin & Rankin. The husband appealed the property settlement orders, the order for spousal maintenance, and the order for child support, while the wife cross-appealed the order for spousal maintenance. The court considered whether the primary judge’s orders led to a just and equitable division of the parties’ assets, whether the order for spousal maintenance was properly made, and whether the order for child support complied with statutory requirements.

The court found no error in the property settlement orders, despite the husband’s argument that certain debts should have been considered. The court held that the primary judge properly excluded the debts from the table of assets and liabilities and correctly considered whether the orders were just and equitable. However, the court found error in the order for spousal maintenance, as the primary judge had failed to take into account the husband’s debts and other financial obligations, resulting in an incorrect finding that he had the capacity to meet the order for spousal maintenance. The court also found error in the child support order, as the primary judge did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth). The court held that the quantum of child support payable by the husband constituted a sizeable proportion of his after-tax income, and the primary judge was required to take into account the income, property, and financial resources of each party to the proceedings.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the orders for spousal maintenance and child support and remitting the applications for spousal maintenance and child support to the Family Court of Australia for rehearing by a different judge. The court also amended the property settlement order to remove the payment of the wife’s legal costs and disbursements. The court dismissed the appeal in relation to the superannuation splitting order, as the husband had consented to the order, and there was no error in the order. The court dismissed the wife’s cross-appeal, as it found no error in the primary judge’s orders. The court issued costs certificates to both parties under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).