Turner & Turner and Anor
Case
•
[2016] FamCAFC 121
•8 July 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Turner & Turner and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 121
[2016] FamCAFC 121
8 July 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Turner & Turner, the court dealt with an appeal from a family law decision concerning property settlement and spousal and child support orders. The wife appealed certain orders made by the trial judge, Macmillan J, and the husband cross-appealed regarding costs. The central issues involved the valuation of the husband's assets, specifically his shareholdings in various companies, and the trial judge's failure to consider the husband's financial circumstances when making spousal maintenance and child support orders.
The court held that the husband's refusal to participate in the valuation process created difficulties in accurately assessing the property pool. The trial judge had ordered the husband to pay the wife a cash amount, without considering the need for the husband to sell or encumber his shareholdings to meet the obligation. This oversight was significant, as the husband was a minority shareholder and would incur taxes and realisation costs in disposing of his shares. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge had erred in making spousal maintenance and child support orders without fully considering the husband's financial situation, despite his high income and earning capacity.
Consequently, the court allowed the appeal on two grounds: the trial judge's failure to properly value the husband's assets and the failure to consider the husband's financial circumstances in making the spousal maintenance and child support orders. The court remitted these issues for rehearing before a different judge, while dismissing the appeal on other grounds and refusing leave to appeal on others. The husband's application for costs was dismissed, and the wife's application for a costs certificate was also dismissed.
The court's orders included allowing the appeal on specific property settlement orders and remitting those issues for rehearing before a different judge, while refusing leave to appeal on other orders. The husband's application for costs was dismissed, as was the wife's application for a costs certificate.
The court held that the husband's refusal to participate in the valuation process created difficulties in accurately assessing the property pool. The trial judge had ordered the husband to pay the wife a cash amount, without considering the need for the husband to sell or encumber his shareholdings to meet the obligation. This oversight was significant, as the husband was a minority shareholder and would incur taxes and realisation costs in disposing of his shares. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge had erred in making spousal maintenance and child support orders without fully considering the husband's financial situation, despite his high income and earning capacity.
Consequently, the court allowed the appeal on two grounds: the trial judge's failure to properly value the husband's assets and the failure to consider the husband's financial circumstances in making the spousal maintenance and child support orders. The court remitted these issues for rehearing before a different judge, while dismissing the appeal on other grounds and refusing leave to appeal on others. The husband's application for costs was dismissed, and the wife's application for a costs certificate was also dismissed.
The court's orders included allowing the appeal on specific property settlement orders and remitting those issues for rehearing before a different judge, while refusing leave to appeal on other orders. The husband's application for costs was dismissed, as was the wife's application for a costs certificate.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Property
-
Spousal Maintenance
-
Child Support
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Cleaves & Cleaves [2021] FamCA 571
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Cleaves & Cleaves
[2021] FamCA 571
SELBY & ROBILLIARD
[2018] FamCA 214
Preiss and Preiss
[2017] FamCA 12
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
3
Watson & Ling
[2013] FamCA 57
Kannis & Kannis
[2002] FamCA 1150
Elgin & Elgin
[2015] FamCAFC 155