In the Marriage of Aleksovski (1996) 20 Fam LR 894
In the Marriage of Gill (1984) 9 Fam LR 969 In the Marriage of McMahon (1995) 19 Fam LR 99 In the Marriage of Myerthall (1977) 3 Fam LR 11,324 In the Marriage of Pierce (1998) 24 Fam LR 377 In the Marriage of Waters (1981) 6 Fam LR 871 In the Marriage of Zappacosta (1976) 2 Fam LR 11,214
Geraldine Andrews QC & Richard Millett QC, Law of Guarantees (Sweet & Maxwell, 6th ed, 2011) The Hon. Justice John Middleton, Concurrent expert evidence: still flavour of the month? (FCA) [2018] FedJSchol 16 The Hon. Justice Steven Rares, Using the “Hot Tub” – How Concurrent Expert Evidence Aids Understanding Issues (FCA) [2010] FedJSchol 20
APPLICANT:
Ms Willans
RESPONDENT:
Mr Enmore
FILE NUMBER:
SYC
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 Willans and Enmore (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Willans and Enmore (No 2) [2021] FamCA 340
Case
[2021] FamCA 340
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Family Court of Australia heard an application by Ms Willans (the applicant) for an adjustment of property interests following the cessation of a de facto relationship with Mr Enmore (the respondent) in November 2016. The relationship had commenced either in October 2004 or April 2005, and involved substantial property interests, including shares in a company named J Pty Ltd, real property, cash, and a self-managed superannuation fund. The applicant sought a 55% to 45% division of property in her favour, while the respondent proposed a 54% to 46% division in his favour.
The court was required to determine the just and equitable division of the parties' property interests. This involved assessing the contributions of each party to the relationship and to the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of the property, as well as considering future needs and other relevant circumstances under sections 90SF(3) and 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also considered the evidence presented, including the applicant's qualifications as a finance professional and her role in the respondent's company, J Pty Ltd, and the respondent's background as a tradesperson or trade engineer.
Justice Wilson found that a just and equitable division of the parties' property interests was a 50% split to each party. This decision was reached after considering the evidence, including the applicant's financial contributions and her role in the respondent's company, and the respondent's contributions. The court directed the parties to submit a minute of proposed orders to give effect to this 50/50 division.