S & S

Case [2005] FamCA 1195


[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 90-267

Evans 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 683

Gissing 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 92-010

Shewring 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

Details
AGLC
S & S [2005] FamCA 1195
Case
[2005] FamCA 1195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria, constituted by Carmody J, considered a dispute between S and S. The nature of the dispute is not specified in the provided text.

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.