Walters & Walters

[2007] FamCA 324

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALTERS & WALTERS [2007] FamCA 324

APPEAL – From decision of Family Court judge – property settlement – s 75(2) factors ‑ trial Judge made adjustment of 10% in favour of the wife – wife sought 20% adjustment – adequacy of reasons – trial judges not reasonably expected to discuss and make findings about every s 75(2) factor – whether adjustment fell short of a reasonable exercise of discretion – adjustment within the reasonable range – appeal dismissed

Family Law Act 1975, s 75(2)

Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191

Collins & Collins (1990) FLC 92-149
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Clauson and Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595

APPELLANT: Walters

RESPONDENT: Walters

FILE NUMBER: PTW 1397 of 2004

APPEAL NUMBER: WA 10 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 18 APRIL 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Perth

JUDGMENT OF: BRYANT CJ, THACKRAY AND CRISFORD JJ

HEARING DATE: 8 FEBRUARY 2007

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Western Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 7 July 2006

LOWER COURT MNC: [2006] FCWA 72

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr J Hedges

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: R E Purvis & Co.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Self Represented

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

Orders

(1)That the appeal be dismissed.

(2)That each party pay their own costs of the appeal.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Full Court delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Walters and Walters.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against orders made by Penny J on 7 July 2006 in property proceedings between the appellant wife and the respondent husband.

2. The trial Judge found the parties’ assets were worth $224,402 and determined they should be divided as to 60% to the husband and 40% to the wife. This division was arrived at on the basis of an assessment of contributions in proportions 70:30 in favour of the husband, with a 10% adjustment in favour of the wife on account of the matters contained in s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975.

3. There was no dispute at trial as to the value of the asset pool and there was no challenge on appeal to her Honour’s assessment of the parties’ contributions. The only challenge relates to her adjustment for the s 75(2) factors. The wife considers it should have been 20%.

Brief background  

1. There was no challenge to the findings of fact of the trial Judge.  Given the very narrow scope of the appeal it is unnecessary to set out the full factual background. 

2. The husband at the time of judgment was almost 33 and the wife 31 years of age.  They were married in January 2000 and separated in October 2003.  There was one child of the marriage, CW, now aged 4.

3. CW was living with the husband five nights each fortnight and with the wife the balance of the time.  This shared care arrangement was pursuant to orders the trial Judge…