Walls & Keeble (No 2) - [2023] FedCFamC2F 477

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Walls & Keeble (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 477

File number: MLC 1269 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE BETTS

Date of judgment: 28 April 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property settlement dispute – de facto relationship – where the wife’s assets were substantially greater than the husband’s at the commencement of the relationship – where the case relates to the division of the non-superannuation property which has a net value exceeding $8M – where the wife contends the division should be 85% - 15% in her favour – where the husband contends that following consideration of “future factors” the division should be 65% - 35% in the wife’s favour – just and equitable outcome.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt VIII, Pt VIIIAB

Cases cited:
Walls & Keeble [2022] FedCFamC2F 1804

Jabour & Jabour [2019] FamCAFC 78

Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757

Kowaliw & Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092

Robb & Robb (1995) FLC 92-555

Semperton & Semperton (2012) 47 Fam LR 626

Stanford & Stanford (2012) FLC 93-518

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 157

Date of last submission/s: 8 March 2023

Date of hearing: 28, 29 & 30 November 2022, 8 March 2023

Place: Town BD & Newcastle

Counsel for the First Applicant: Mr Bithrey

Solicitor for the First Applicant: Kekeff & Associates

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Graham

Counsel for the First Respondent: Lindeman Lawyers
ORDERS

MLC 1269 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS WALLS

Applicant

AND:
MR KEEBLE

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE BETTS

DATE OF ORDER:

28 April 2023

DEFINITIONS:
A.In these orders:
a.“The Ms Walls Trust” means the Ms Walls Trust which the Applicant brought into the relationship. The Trust holds assets owned by the Applicant prior to the relationship with the Respondent and loaned monies to The C Trust to acquire the Town B Property.
b.“The C Trust” means The C Trust, which is owned and controlled by the Applicant and the Respondent. The C Trust owns assets including the Town B Property and it owes money to the Ms Walls Trust for the acquisition of the Property, and to the Applicant.
c.“The Town B Company” means The Town B Company Pty Ltd (…) owned and controlled by the Applicant and the Respondent as directors and shareholders. The Town B Company is the Corporate Trustee of the C Trust.
d.“The Town B Property” means the property at J Street, Town B in the State of New South Wales, and the Property business operated at that property by the Town B Company trading as the Town B Property.
e.“O Street property” means the property situated at and known as O Street, Town B in the State of New South Wales which is owned by the Applicant, and was purchased with funds provided by the Ms Walls Trust.
f.“P Street, Suburb Q property” means the property situated at and known as…

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 Walls & Keeble (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Walls & Keeble (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 477
Case: [2023] FedCFamC2F 477
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the court was required to decide a property settlement dispute arising from the breakdown of a de facto relationship between Ms Walls and Mr Keeble. The major point of contention was the division of non-superannuation property, with a net value exceeding $8M. The Wife argued for an 85% - 15% division in her favour, while the Husband contended that considering future factors, a 65% - 35% division in the Wife's favour would be just and equitable. The court assessed the contributions made by each party during the relationship, taking into account the Wife's substantial initial assets and the Husband's efforts in renovating and maintaining the Town B Property. The court also considered the Husband's failure to disclose certain financial information and assets, which led to an add-back of $50,000 in the Balance Sheet. The court ultimately decided that a division of 83% - 17% in the Wife's favour would be a just and equitable outcome, considering the parties' respective contributions and the Husband's non-disclosure.

The court made several orders regarding the division of assets and liabilities, including declaring the Applicant solely entitled to specific properties and entities, and requiring the Respondent to transfer his interest in certain assets to the Applicant. The Respondent was also required to indemnify the Applicant against various liabilities and make a cash payment of $1,085,042 to the Applicant. The court further ordered that each party would be solely responsible for their respective liabilities and indemnify the other party against certain liabilities.

Orders