Legal Research
Cases
Roswell & Roswell

Roswell & Roswell

Case [2023] FedCFamC2F 579 23 May 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Roswell & Roswell [2023] FedCFamC2F 579

File number(s): ADC 5529 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE BROWN

Date of judgment: 23 May 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property settlement – marriage of 20 years duration – marriage produced three children – parties engaged in business – where husband attended to physical aspects for the business and the wife was charged with the administrative aspects – husband asserts that the wife expropriated assets during the marriage – parties acquired real properties throughout marriage – wife asserts she properly administered the family’s financial affairs through a trust and corporate trustee – children estranged from their father – consideration of s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – treatment of add backs – assessment of contributions – just and equitable

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, VIIIB, ss 75(2), 79, 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Ch 12, r 12.17

Cases cited:
Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116

Biltoft & Biltoft (1995) 19 Fam LR 82

Chorn & Hopkins (2004) 32 Fam LR 518

Clauson v Clauson (1995) 18 Fam LR 693

Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

Collins & Collins (1990) FLC 92-149

Ferguson & Ferguson (1978) FLC 90-500

Ferraro v Ferraro (1992) 16 Fam LR 1

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Hickey & Hickey (2003) 30 Fam LR 355

In the Marriage of Browne & Green (1999) 25 Fam LR 482

In the Marriage of DJM and JLM (1998) 23 Fam LR 396

In the Marriage of Kohan (1992) 16 Fam LR 245

In the Marriage of Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092

In the Marriage of Omacini (2005) 33 Fam LR 134

In the Marriage of Townsend (1994) 18 Fam LR 505

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

L & L [2003] FamCA 40

Laskari & Laskari and Ors [2014] FamCA 1183

Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844

Robb and Robb (1994) 18 Fam LR 489

Rodgers & Rodgers (No 2) [2016] FamCAFC 104

Rushton & Rushton [2011] FMCAfam 1259

Russell & Russell (1999) 25 Fam LR 629

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193

Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173

Waters & Jurek (1995) 20 Fam LR 190

Watson & Ling [2013] FamCA 57

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 303

Date of hearing: 1 & 2 March 2023

Place: Adelaide

Applicant: Appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Dillon

Solicitor for the Respondent: Shorter Legal Pty Ltd
ORDERS

ADC 5529 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR ROSWELL

Applicant

AND:
MS ROSWELL

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE BROWN

DATE OF ORDER:

23 May 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Including but without limiting the effect hereof, the applicant, Mr Roswell (herein after referred to as ‘the husband’) shall retain for his sole use…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Roswell & Roswell

Details

AGLC: Roswell & Roswell [2023] FedCFamC2F 579
Case: [2023] FedCFamC2F 579
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roswell & Roswell, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) was required to determine the division of marital property between Mr Roswell and Ms Roswell following a marriage of approximately 20 years. The court was tasked with assessing the contributions of each party, their respective needs, and the just and equitable division of property in accordance with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court found that the parties had a significant pool of assets, including various properties and motor vehicles, as well as superannuation. The husband alleged that the wife had misappropriated assets during the marriage, but the court found no evidence to support this claim. The court assessed the contributions of each party, taking into account both financial and non-financial contributions, as well as the needs of each party. The court found that the wife's contributions and needs favoured her, and ordered that the parties' non-superannuation assets be divided in a 65/35% ratio in her favour. The court also ordered that the husband pay the wife a settlement sum of $144,585.11, and that the wife be responsible for discharging the joint liabilities of the parties. The court made various orders regarding the division of specific properties and the winding up of the parties' company and trust.

Orders