Rapson and Rapson

[2007] FamCA 1257

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAPSON & RAPSON [2007] FamCA 1257

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Settlement in relation to marriage

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Rapson

RESPONDENT: Mr Rapson

FILE NUMBER: MLF 537 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 11 October 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Carter J

HEARING DATE: 8, 9 & 10 October 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Thompson of counsel appeared 8, 9 & 10/10/2007.  Ms Nguyen, Solicitor, appeared 11/10/2007.

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Devenish & Co

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Moore

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Borchard & Moore

Orders

1. In the matter of Rapson, MLF 537 of 2006, I adjourn the further hearing of this matter to 9.30 am on 26 October 2007 to enable counsel to bring in Minutes of Orders consistent with my Reasons for Judgment given this day, with liberty to bring the matter on earlier by mutual agreement, subject to consultation with my Associate.

2. I reserve all questions of costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rapson & Rapson is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 537 of 2006

MS RAPSON  

Applicant

and

MR RAPSON  

Respondent

Ex Tempore

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Even though their marriage has been dissolved I will continue to refer to the parties as “the husband” and “the wife”.

2. This is the determination of proceedings for property settlement and child support following the breakdown of the marriage.  As to property, the wife, claims 70 per cent of the net assets, which on her calculations, total in round terms almost $1.4 million. That figure includes “add-backs” of just over $230,000.  The husband proposes a division in the proportion of 55 per cent to the wife and 45 per cent to himself.  He does not specify what the pool of assets is and has not quantified the assets in any way, nor has he set out or submitted to me whether add-backs are disputed, and if so, which ones.  I will come back to this later on.

3. Additionally, the wife seeks a lump-sum order for child support of $36,400, representing two years' payment of child support, or alternatively that the sum of $50,000 be paid to her solicitors as security for payment of child support for a period of three years.  For his part, the husband conceded that there should be a lump-sum payment of $15,000 only.

Relevant Legal Principles

1. Section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975, “the Act”, requires a four-step exercise.

   4.1Firstly, the identification of the property of the parties, their assets, liabilities and financial resources;

   4.2Secondly, the evaluation of the parties' contributions, whether financial or non-financial, direct or indirect, including contributions to the welfare of the family in the capacity of homemaker or parent;

   4.3Thirdly, the evaluation of the matters referred to in section 75(2);  and

   4.4Finally, a determination of whether the result is just and equitable, noting that it is the…