Thurston & Loomis & Ors
Case
•
[2018] FamCA 26
•25 January 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Thurston & Loomis & Ors [2018] FamCA 26
[2018] FamCA 26
25 January 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned property settlement and child support proceedings between the Applicant and the First Respondent, following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. The parties had one child together and presented a high level of disagreement regarding their financial contributions to the relationship, which had involved the contribution of property of relatively equal value. The primary remaining asset for the parties was their self-managed superannuation fund, and the court noted a loss of wealth during the relationship. An intervener was also involved in the property settlement proceedings.
The court was required to determine how to divide the net property pool in a just and equitable manner, considering that it was not appropriate to assess contributions on an asset-by-asset basis. Additionally, the court needed to address child support arrears and make departure orders, given the First Respondent's limited assistance with child support and the Applicant's principal responsibility for the child's care since separation. Leave was sought and granted to make orders under section 118 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 for a specified period.
Forrest J reasoned that justice and equity necessitated an adjustment to the parties' interests in the property pool, ultimately ordering a division of 60 per cent to the Respondent and 40 per cent to the Applicant. In relation to child support, the court varied the annual rate payable by the father for the child, KK, to $3,333.20 for several child support periods between 2012 and 2018. For subsequent periods, the rate was to be determined by the normal administrative provisions, with specific income figures set for both parents.
The proceedings were adjourned for the court to hear final submissions on the precise wording of the property settlement orders to ensure they gave effect to the court's findings in a just and equitable way. Orders were also made for the parties to serve the sealed orders on the Child Support Registrar to calculate arrears and future payments, and to file an affidavit detailing these amounts.
The court was required to determine how to divide the net property pool in a just and equitable manner, considering that it was not appropriate to assess contributions on an asset-by-asset basis. Additionally, the court needed to address child support arrears and make departure orders, given the First Respondent's limited assistance with child support and the Applicant's principal responsibility for the child's care since separation. Leave was sought and granted to make orders under section 118 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 for a specified period.
Forrest J reasoned that justice and equity necessitated an adjustment to the parties' interests in the property pool, ultimately ordering a division of 60 per cent to the Respondent and 40 per cent to the Applicant. In relation to child support, the court varied the annual rate payable by the father for the child, KK, to $3,333.20 for several child support periods between 2012 and 2018. For subsequent periods, the rate was to be determined by the normal administrative provisions, with specific income figures set for both parents.
The proceedings were adjourned for the court to hear final submissions on the precise wording of the property settlement orders to ensure they gave effect to the court's findings in a just and equitable way. Orders were also made for the parties to serve the sealed orders on the Child Support Registrar to calculate arrears and future payments, and to file an affidavit detailing these amounts.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Thurston & Loomis & Ors [2018] FamCA 26
Most Recent Citation
Appleford and Meriden [2018] FCCA 3333
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Peat and Northup (No 2)
[2020] FamCA 1123
Davids and Davids
[2019] FamCA 544
Appleford and Meriden
[2018] FCCA 3333
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
3
SL & EHL
[2005] FamCA 132
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52