Voight & Zunino

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 311

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Voight & Zunino [2025] FedCFamC1F 311

File number MLC 6754 of 2022
Judgment of WILSON J
Date of judgment 5 June 2025
Catchwords FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR ALTERATION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – farming concern – applicant de facto wife seeking an alteration of property interests in the sum of $3,000,000 pursuant to s 90SM – applicant contending that her contributions to the running of the respondent’s farm, while employed as a worker, entitled her to an alteration of property interests in her favour – issues central to the ratio decidendi of Stanford v Stanford canvassed – held, not just and equitable to make the alteration of property interests orders sought – s 90SM application dismissed.
Legislation Family Law Act 1975 ss 79, 90SM, 90SF
Cases cited

Attorney-General v Worrall [1895] 1 QB 99

Babray & Babray [2019] FCCA 3514

Bevan & Bevan (2013) 49 Fam LR 387

Chancellor & McCoy [2016] FamCAFC 256

Chapman & Chapman (2014) 51 Fam LR 176

Collector of Imposts (Vic) v Cuming Campbell Investments Pty Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 619

Collector of Imposts (Vic) v Peers (1921) 29 CLR 115

Comptroller of Stamps (Vic) v Joe White Maltings Pty Ltd [1956] VLR 253

Consola & Moretto [2023] FedCFamC1A 61

Cyprus Mines Corporation v Commissioner of Taxation (1978) 36 FLR 295

Faraday & Faraday [2020] FCCA 1895

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v McPhail (1968) 117 CLR 111

Fitch & Lewis [2017] FCCA 371

Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 24

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Church Commissioners for England [1977] AC 329

Irons v Smallpiece (1819) 106 ER 467

Jabour v Jabour (2019) 59 Fam LR 475

Kennon v Kennon (1997) 22 Fam LR 1

Leary v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1980) 32 ALR 221

Macrow v Collector of Imposts (Vic) [1921] VLR 23

NHC v RCH (2004) 32 Fam LR 518

Paxton & Paxton [2016] FCCA 1689

Rannell v IRC [1964] AC 173

Re Cochrane and the Finance Act 1894 [1906] 2 IR 200

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107

Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120

Whent & Marband [2018] FamCAFC 95

Woolams & Woolams (2004) FLC 93, 95

Division Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs 85
Date of hearing 11-12 December 2023 (Judge Kirton)
28 April 2025 and 4 June 2025 (Justice Wilson)
Place Melbourne
Counsel for the applicant Ms R. Stoikovska SC (11-12 December 2023) with Mr D. Meehan (11-12 December 2023 and 28 April 2025) and Mr A. Robinson (4 June 2025)
Solicitor for the applicant Cosgriff Lawyers
Counsel for the respondent Mr T. Puckey KC (11-12 December 2023) with Mr A. Chislett (11-12 December 2023 and 4 June 2025) and Mr C. Trim (28 April 2025)
Solicitor for the respondent Beck Legal

ORDERS

MLC 6754 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN

MS VOIGHT

Applicant
AND

MR ZUNINO

Respondent

Continue reading Voight & Zunino

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Voight & Zunino [2025] FedCFamC1F 311
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Voight & Zunino, Ms. Voight, the applicant, sought an alteration of property interests under section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) from Mr. Zunino, the respondent, in the amount of $3,000,000. Ms. Voight contended that her contributions to the operation of Mr. Zunino's farming business, during their de facto relationship, entitled her to a share of his assets. The court was required to determine whether the making of an order for the payment of the sum sought by Ms. Voight was just and equitable, considering the nature of the relationship, the duration, and the contributions made by each party.

The court analysed the evidence presented, including the contributions of Ms. Voight as an employed farm worker, the separate financial arrangements, and the nature of the relationship as articulated by both parties. It found that Ms. Voight had been paid for her work on the farm and had already received a payment of $300,000. The court also noted the statement by Mr. Zunino asserting that they operated as separate financial entities and maintained separate bank accounts. These findings led the court to conclude that it was not just and equitable to make the orders sought by Ms. Voight.

As a result, the court dismissed Ms. Voight's application for an alteration of property interests. The reasoning was that the contributions Ms. Voight made as an employee were already compensated, and there was no basis for further entitlement to a division of Mr. Zunino's assets. The court emphasised that the relationship's nature and the financial arrangements between the parties did not support a significant alteration of property interests in Ms. Voight's favour. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1, formally dismissed the application on 5 June 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 6754 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN

MS VOIGHT

Applicant

AND

MR ZUNINO

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

5 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the applicant’s s 90SM application filed 30 August 2023 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

As these reasons reveal, I am of the view that the making of an order for the payment of the sum sought by the applicant ($3,000,000 or thereabouts) is not just and equitable having regard to the nature of the parties’ relationship, the duration of the relationship and the contributions performed. I am also of the view that the applicant, having received a payment of $300,000, has been provided with an amount that in all the circumstances means that no further amount is due. She was paid for the work she performed on the farm. The applicant did not explain how she was additionally entitled to a division of the respondent’s assets having been paid for the work she performed as an employed farm worker. I dismiss this proceeding. RELEVANT BACKGROUND For many years the respondent has carried on a family business in rural New South Wales on farming property known as “B”. Cropping and sheep farming activities have been his main source of revenue. The respondent is and at all relevant times has carried on business as a sole trader. When he made his trial affidavit in November 2023 he was 74 years of age. He deposed to his assets standing at an amount in excess of $7,500,000. He deposed to the applicant having minimal assets when he and she commenced cohabitation (25 February 2013) made up of two trucks, a utility vehicle, savings of $2,000 and superannuation of a little over $28,000. A considerable amount of attention was devoted in the trial of this proceeding to the statement in paragraph 26 of his trial affidavit –“The applicant made it very clear to me that we were two different financial entities, she would tell me that it was my property and if something was wrong with it then I had to fix it because it was mine.” He deposed to never discussing finances and that at all they times operated separate bank accounts. The applicant provided details of the manner in which she and the respondent met, the respondent not addressing that issue. She deposed in her trial affidavit made 14 November 2023 that she formed a relationship with the respondent in June 2012 and they lived together from March 2013 to November 2020 at Town B. She deposed to meeting the respondent in response to an advertisement he placed for companionship. That document was not adduced in evidence, however. In addition to commencing this proceeding against the respondent under the provisions of the Family Law Act, the applicant also commenced a proceeding under the Fair Work Act against the respondent in which she sought recovery of sums allegedly due for breach of a contract of employment said to have inured between the applicant and the respondent. The details and ramifications of that contention are set out below. The evidence revealed that the applicant undertook a collection of farm-related activities. Some were disputed by the respondent, as to the fact of their doing or as to the quality of their doing. In the passages below I have addressed that contention. THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE RESPONDENT

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

The applicant complained that she was paid irregularly or intermittently. That seemed to provide context for her commencement of her Fair Work Act application.THE DETERIORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP From 2019 it appeared that the civility of relations between the applicant and the respondent waned. The applicant deposed to the respondent taking a two week vacation in Country F. She said that he told the applicant that if she wanted to go she needed to pay her own way which she was unable to do so she remained behind looking after the farm. Chronologically afterwards, the applicant deposed to the respondent belittling the applicant calling her “dumb”, “lazy” and “stupid”. She said he verbally abused her. She said the respondent kicked and yelled at the animals. She said she experienced a heightened sense of anxiety and depression. On behalf of the respondent Mr Puckey KC submitted that assertions about any cruelty to animals by the respondent were irrelevant.[10] And even if they assumed any degree of relevance (which he said they did not) any such evidence was to be contrasted with his grief upon his loss of his dog in 2014.[11] Further, as a matter of evidence Mr Puckey KC submitted that any evidence of alleged acts of cruelty to animals by the respondent was not consistent with there being admissible evidence of a violent disposition by the respondent towards the applicant. Mr Puckey KC conceded that the respondent’s language may have amounted to verbal abuse.[12] That was to be contrasted with the evidence given directly in paragraph 25 of the applicant’s trial affidavit that the respondent called the applicant “a fucking cunt” or “a lazy bitch”. Mr Puckey KC did not challenge the applicant to the effect that she exaggerated when using those words or that those words if used at all were used on a one-off basis or that some otherwise nefarious complexion should be placed on those words. The applicant described the procedure she underwent in 2020 for an illness. She described an event soon after her surgery when a sheep headbutted the area of the surgery causing the applicant considerable pain, knocking her to the ground. She deposed to the respondent doing nothing to assist although she admitted the event was an accident. She said that her son Mr G took her to a nearby hospital for stitches and treatment and that upon her return, she did not handle sheep. [10] Transcript 12 December 2023, p. 147 line 1.[11] Transcript 12 December 2023, p. 147 line 7.[12] Transcript 12 December 2023, p. 147 line 4. The applicant also deposed to an event on an unspecified day when she was assisting in the unloading of grain from a truck to a silo. She said she struggled to shut the door at the back of the truck because it was heavy and she was unable to close it. She said the respondent yelled at her, calling her names. Without fixing a date to the event, the applicant deposed in paragraph 31 of her trial affidavit to her becoming increasingly anxious and depressed with the manner in which she said the respondent treated her. She said she told a friend of her suicidal thoughts. She said she considered leaving the respondent yet she feared that the respondent would kill her horses if she did.