TFV v JRG - [2012] QSC 276

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

TFV v JRG [2012] QSC 276

PARTIES:

TFV
(Applicant)

v

JRG
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 10328 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 - 9 March 2012
Final written submissions 4 May 2012

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

I will hear from counsel as to the terms of the order and as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – PARTICULAR CASES – Where applicant seeks an order under Subdivision 2 of Division 4 of Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – Where parties were in a de facto relationship for five years before separation – Where respondent sold his business two and a half years after the parties separated and received in excess of $6 million in cash and shares before tax – Where the applicant earns approximately $30,000 per year – Where applicant and respondent adopted equal shared care arrangements for their four children after separation – Where respondent has married and had a further two children – Where the respondent purchased a property for the applicant, met the costs of renovation to that property, paid child support and made regular large cash payments to the applicant, purchased vehicles for the applicant and the applicant was allowed to use the respondent’s credit card after separation – Where the asset pool at the time of trial amounts to approximately $3.4 million – Where the applicant contends for an asset pool other than the funds available at the time of trial – Whether there has been a premature distribution of funds which justifies ‘add backs’ – Where the applicant contends for 60 per cent of the asset pool and an order that she receive $4,000 per month pending the adjustment – Whether there has been a ‘special contribution’ but the respondent – Whether the division of the asset pool is just and equitable.

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 255, s 262, s 263, s 283, s 287, s 288(1)(a), s 291, s 292, s 293, s 294, s 295, s 297, s 298, s 299, s 300, s 301, s 303, s 304, s 305, s 306, s 307, s 308
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 389(2)

Brown v Green (1999) FLC 92-873, cited
Cerini [1998] Fam CA 42, cited
Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204, cited
Cumpton v Cumpton (2007) 38 Fam LR 377, cited
Ferraro and Ferraro [1992] Fam CA 64; (1993) FLC 92-335, cited
FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555, cited
GAJ v RAJ [2011] QCA 65, cited
JEL v DEF [2000] Fam CA 1353; (2000) 28 Fam LR 1, cited
McLay [1996] Fam CA 29, cited
Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605, cited
Marker v Marker [1998] Fam CA 42, cited
Omacini and Omacini (2005) FLC 93-216, cited
Phillips…

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 TFV v JRG

Details

AGLC: TFV v JRG [2012] QSC 276
Case: [2012] QSC 276
Decision Date: 16 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of TFV v JRG, the applicant sought an adjustment of property interests under the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) following the termination of a five-year de facto relationship. The applicant contended that despite the significant financial gain the respondent received from the sale of his business shortly after separation, an equitable distribution of the assets was warranted. The respondent had made substantial contributions to the applicant post-separation, including financial support, property renovation, and the purchase of vehicles. The asset pool at the time of trial was approximately $3.4 million, and the applicant sought a division of this pool, arguing for a 60 per cent share and an interim payment of $4,000 per month until the final adjustment.

The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent’s financial gains from the sale of his business constituted a premature distribution of funds, thereby warranting an adjustment in the asset pool. Additionally, the court had to assess if the respondent's contributions to the applicant post-separation constituted a 'special contribution' and whether the division of the asset pool was just and equitable under the circumstances. The applicant argued for the inclusion of additional assets in the pool, contending that the current financial situation did not reflect the true contributions made by the parties during their relationship.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the substantial financial contributions made by the respondent post-separation, which were aimed at maintaining the living standards of the applicant and their children. The court found that the respondent’s sale of his business did not amount to a premature distribution of funds that warranted 'add backs' to the asset pool. The court also considered the equal shared care arrangements and the financial disparity between the parties. Ultimately, the court determined that a division of the asset pool other than the one proposed by the applicant was just and equitable, taking into account all relevant factors, including the contributions and the needs of the parties and their children. The court will hear from counsel regarding the terms of the final order and the allocation of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

I will hear from counsel as to the terms of the order and as to costs.

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.

CITATION:	TFV v JRG [2012] QSC 276
PARTIES:	TFV (Applicant) v JRG (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 10328 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 - 9 March 2012 Final written submissions 4 May 2012
JUDGE:	Ann Lyons J
ORDER:	I will hear from counsel as to the terms of the order and as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – PARTICULAR CASES – Where applicant seeks an order under Subdivision 2 of Division 4 of Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – Where parties were in a de facto relationship for five years before separation – Where respondent sold his business two and a half years after the parties separated and received in excess of $6 million in cash and shares before tax – Where the applicant earns approximately $30,000 per year – Where applicant and respondent adopted equal shared care arrangements for their four children after separation – Where respondent has married and had a further two children – Where the respondent purchased a property for the applicant, met the costs of renovation to that property, paid child support and made regular large cash payments to the applicant, purchased vehicles for the applicant and the applicant was allowed to use the respondent’s credit card after separation – Where the asset pool at the time of trial amounts to approximately $3.4 million – Where the applicant contends for an asset pool other than the funds available at the time of trial – Whether there has been a premature distribution of funds which justifies ‘add backs’ – Where the applicant contends for 60 per cent of the asset pool and an order that she receive $4,000 per month pending the adjustment – Whether there has been a ‘special contribution’ but the respondent – Whether the division of the asset pool is just and equitable. Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 255, s 262, s 263, s 283, s 287, s 288(1)(a), s 291, s 292, s 293, s 294, s 295, s 297, s 298, s 299, s 300, s 301, s 303, s 304, s 305, s 306, s 307, s 308 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 389(2) Brown v Green (1999) FLC 92-873, cited Cerini [1998] Fam CA 42, cited Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204, cited Cumpton v Cumpton (2007) 38 Fam LR 377, cited Ferraro and Ferraro [1992] Fam CA 64; (1993) FLC 92-335, cited FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555, cited GAJ v RAJ [2011] QCA 65, cited JEL v DEF [2000] Fam CA 1353; (2000) 28 Fam LR 1, cited McLay [1996] Fam CA 29, cited Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605, cited Marker v Marker [1998] Fam CA 42, cited Omacini and Omacini (2005) FLC 93-216, cited Phillips…