FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Sandford & Macy (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 108
File number(s): SYC 5112 of 2015 Judgment of: CAMPTON J Date of judgment: 3 March 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Undefended hearing – Applicant’s final relief struck out – Applicant cross examined the respondent and made submissions -Adjustment of property pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the parties have been separated for longer than the period of their de facto relationship – Longstanding non-compliance with orders and duties of disclosure by the applicant – Where applicant’s failures to disclose impacts on the balance sheet and the contribution findings and adjustments thereto – Where the respondent made significant post-separation contributions, including by way of her primary care and financial support of the parties’ only child – Where the respondent seeks the funds held in the parties’ joint bank account, being their only remaining jointly owned property – Where a just and equitable division of the parties’ property was found to be in the portion of 75 per cent to the respondent and 25 per cent to the applicant. Legislation: Family Law Act1975 (Cth) s 90SF, 90SK, 90SM, 106A
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 6.026.06, 10.22, 10.26, 10.27
Cases cited: Black & Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14
Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25
Sandford & Macy [2022] FedCFamC1F 902
Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52
Weir and Weir (1993) FLC 92-338
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 109 Date of hearing: 28 February 2023 Place: Sydney The Applicant: Litigant in person The Respondent: Litigant in person ORDERS
SYC 5112 of 2015 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR SANDFORD
Applicant
AND: MS MACY
Respondent
order made by:
CAMPTON J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 March 2023
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The Initiating Application of the applicant filed on 5 August 2015 was struck out by operation of Order 6(a) made on 22 November 2022.
B.The Proper Officer of B Bank is requested to do all things necessary to facilitate the implementation of Order 1 hereof.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within fourteen (14) days of the date of these orders, the applicant shall do all acts and things so as to transfer and assign to the respondent all his rights, entitlements and interest in the funds held in B Bank account ending …68.
2.The respondent shall serve a sealed copy of these orders on B Bank within seven (7) days of the date of these orders.
3.Save and except as provided for by these orders, the applicant and respondent shall each retain to the exclusion of the other all cash at bank and shareholdings held by them, all real property held by them, all items of furniture and personalty in their respective possession, and any superannuation interest they…
Continue reading Sandford & Macy (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sandford & Macy (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 108
- Case
- [2023] FedCFamC1F 108
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court began by examining the financial documents provided by the applicant, which revealed that the applicant had received financial support from his mother on at least four occasions, totaling 30,600 AUD and 756 GBP. The court then assessed the contributions made by both parties to the property pool, including financial and non-financial contributions, and contributions to the welfare of the family before, during, and after the relationship. In this regard, the court considered the value of the D Street unit, which the applicant owned 75% of at the time of cohabitation. The court found that the unit had a nominal value of 100,000 GBP, subject to a mortgage of 45,000 GBP. However, the respondent contested the valuation and argued that it was not accurate due to the applicant’s lack of disclosure. The court rejected the applicant's claim for additional costs associated with the D Street unit, as no evidence was provided to substantiate the claim.
In light of the above, the court made orders adjusting the known property of the parties as set out in the judgment. The court also reserved the right for the respondent to apply for costs if she deemed it appropriate, requiring her to file an affidavit as to the costs accrued throughout the proceedings. The court’s determination was based on the evidence presented and the statutory criteria set out in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Drawing from the limited financial documents disclosed to her by the applicant, the respondent said and I find that the applicant had received financial support by way of cash transfers from his mother on at least four occasions between 19 March 2020 and 7 February 2021, totalling 30,600 AUD and 756 GBP. THE LAW AND CONSIDERATION In determining claims for alteration of de facto property interests, I am required to:(a)Make findings as to the identity and value of the property (including superannuation interests), liabilities, and financial resources of the parties, or either of them, at the time of the final hearing, and determine the legal and equitable interests of the parties in such property;(b)Consider, identify and assess the contributions by the parties to the acquisition, conservation and/or improvement of their property, including financial and non-financial contributions and any contributions to the welfare of the family before, during and after the relationship came to an end; and(c)After consideration of altering the interests in the property pool on the basis of contributions, to consider whether there should be any further adjustment to either of the parties on account of the matters set out in s 90SM(4)(d)-(g) of the Act, including any relevant considerations under s 90SF(3); (d)Ensure that any order made is just and equitable.The balance sheet The respondent’s balance sheet was filed on 16 November 2022. Doing the best I can, on the material available, I find the known property of the parties as at the date of the hearing to be: As recorded above, the applicant had a 75 per cent interest in the D Street unit at cohabitation. The parties lived in the D Street unit between early 2010 and late 2010 (being nine months total) and otherwise the unit has been tenanted. There is no evidence as to the rental income received by the applicant from the unit. The balance sheet produced by the respondent contends that the D Street unit at the time of the trial is wholly owned by the applicant. That reflects the representations given by both parties to the Court when the matter came before me on 22 November 2022. It is not clear on the evidence how or when the applicant came to acquire or receive the balance of the 25 per cent interest in the D Street unit. In any event, the parties agreed that for the purpose of these proceedings, the D Street unit could be attributed a value of 100,000 GBP, subject to a mortgage secured upon it of 45,000 GBP. That said in her affidavit, the respondent gave evidence that:140.I agreed in court on 22 November 2022 to a nominal value of [100,000 GBP] for the [D Street unit] in order to ensure that this matter was able to proceed and because I am not seeking any claim on that property. I do not believe this is an accurate valuation. However it is impossible for me to assess the true value of the property due to [the applicant’s] ongoing lack of disclosure. The notations made on 22 November 2022 record the applicant’s contention that additional costs associated with the D Street unit, including of renovations and in relation to legal proceedings as to the property, ought be included as a liability in the balance sheet in the range of 89,000 GBP. This matter is controversial. As was noted on 22 November 2022, it was a matter for the applicant to establish the fact of the contended liability at trial on the evidence. No such evidence has been adduced by the applicant, and these asserted costs were not a subject traversed by him in cross-examination of the respondent at the hearing. They shall not be included in the balance sheet.