[2005] FamCA 1195
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE No. (P) BRF 2978 of 2004
BETWEEN:
S
Applicant Wife
AND:
S
Respondent Husband
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CARMODY
Date of Hearing: 18 August 2005.
Date of Judgment: 17 November 2005.
Appearances: Mr. Page of Senior Counsel, instructed by MacDonnells, Solicitors, of 14/259 Queen Street, Brisbane, Qld, 4000, appeared on behalf of the Applicant Wife.
Mr. Kirk of Senior Counsel, instructed by Evans & Company, Family Lawyers, of PO Box 7117, Gold Coast MC, Qld, 9726, appeared on behalf of the Respondent Husband.
Name of Case: S AND S
File Number: BRF 2978 of 2004
Date of Hearing: 18 August 2005
Date of Judgment: 17 November 2005
Coram: Carmody J
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – General principles of adjustive jurisdiction under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – The s 79 process – “breadwinner” vs “homemaker” contributions – significance of substantial initial contributions in context of marriage of average duration.
Legislation:Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 43, 72, 75(2), 79, 81, 117(2A)
Cases considered: Aleksovski and Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705
Baumgartner and Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Beneke and Beneke (1996) FLC 92-698
Biltoft and Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614
Brandt and Brandt (1997) FLC 92-758
Bremner and Bremner (1995) FLC 92-560
B & R (Unreported, Full Court appeal No. EA 41/93, Ellis, Lindenmayer and Bell J, 21 September 1993)
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204
Clauson and Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
Collins and Collins (1990) FLC 92-149
Crawford and Crawford (1979) FLC 90-647
Dawes and Dawes (1990) FLC 92-108
Dickson and Dickson (1999) FLC 92-843
Elias and Elias (1977) FLC 90-267Evans and Marmont (1997) 41 NSWLR 70
Eves v Eves [1975] 3 All ER 768
Farmer and Bramley (2000) FLC 93-060
Ferraro and Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-353
Fisher and Fisher (1986) 161 CLR 438
G and G [2001] FamCA 1453
GBT and BJT [2005] FamCA 683Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Harris and Harris (1991) FLC 92-254
Hickey and Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143
Howlett v Neilson (2005) 33 Fam LR 402
Hunt and Zuryn (2005) FLC 93-226
Jordan and Jordan (1997) FLC 92-736
Kennon and Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757
Lee Steere and Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626
Mallet and Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605
McMahon and McMahon (1995) FLC 92-606
Money and Money (1994) FLC 92-485
Norbis and Norbis (1986) FLC 91-712
Pettitt and Pettitt [1970] AC 777
Phillips and Phillips (2002) FLC 93-104
Pierce and Pierce (1998) FLC 92-844
Robb and Robb (1995) FLC 92-055
Roney and Roney (1979) FLC 90-709
Rosati and Rosati (1998) FLC 92-804
Shaw and Shaw (1989) FLC 92-010Shewring and Shewring (1997) FLC 91-926
Waters and Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635
Zyk and Zyk (1995) FLC 92-644
In her application for property settlement, the wife sought an order for a 50/50 division of property, as well as $500 per week for…
Continue reading S & S
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- S & S [2005] FamCA 1195
- Case
- [2005] FamCA 1195
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the legal issues arising from the dispute between the parties. The specific legal questions before the court are not detailed in the provided text.
Carmody J's reasoning and the legal principles applied in reaching a decision are not available from the provided text. The final orders or outcome of the case are also not stated.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.