Warbrick & Warbrick

The appeal in this matter was brought by Mr Warbrick ("the husband") against property settlement orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The husband contended that the primary judge erred in relation to the treatment of $339,487 received by his former wife, Ms Warbrick ("the wife"). At trial, the husband sought that these monies be treated as property and in the alternative, that an adjustment be made in his favour pursuant to s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975. Both arguments failed. The primary judge determined that the amount should not be included in the present property and resources of the parties and, having ruled against the husband’s contention that the wife failed to give full and frank disclosure in relation to her use of these funds, his Honour found that the wife’s reasonable expenditure of such sum was for living expenses for both herself and the children in circumstances where the husband was not paying child support from March 2018 for a significant period. The submission that the wife’s expenditure should be characterised, quoting Kowaliw, as “wanton, reckless and unreasonable” was rejected accordingly. The parties’ total net property was determined to be $1,091,524 which included $182,515 superannuation in the husband’s name. Of this total sum, net non-superannuation assets amounted to $909,009. Pursuant to s 75(2) of the Act, an adjustment of 10 per cent was made in favour of the wife. The wife received the family home and was required to pay the husband an adjusting amount of $169,600. Thus, the wife received the family home and the husband received his minor savings, a piece of jewellery, his superannuation and the adjusting amount payable by the wife. According to the husband this outcome is plainly wrong. The wife seeks to uphold the orders. The appeal was dismissed. As to costs, directions will be made for written submissions.