Recent judgments of the Family Court of Australia
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Wife received 52 percent, husband received 48 percent of the parties assets – Global approach to ascertaining entitlements – Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 cited
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – CONTRIBUTIONS – Wife’s contribution assessed at 52 percent and the husband’s contribution at 48 percent – Contributions of parties regarded as equal in the post separation period – Mallet v Mallet (1984) CLR 605 cited in support of principle that neither category of contribution, being financial contributions and homemaking and parenting contributions, is inherently entitled to greater recognition than the other
FAMILY LAW – SUPERANNUATION – superannuation interests of the parties regarded as part of the pool of assets to be apportioned between the parties – Coghlan v Coghlan (2005) FLC 93-220 cited
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – SECTION 75(2) FACTORS – No adjustment made to the contribution based entitlements of the parties by reference to s 75(2) of the Act – Not accepted that adjustment should be made in favour of the wife for her alleged responsibility to support adult son, as application could be made for adult child maintenance in accordance with Re AM (Adult Child Maintenance) (2006) FLC 93-262 – Not accepted that adjustment should be made in favour of wife in consideration of the husband’s cohabitation with a new partner, as no evidence was led in regards to the partner’s finances – Acknowledged that an adjustment would need to be made in favour of the party who did not receive a residential facility, in recognition of the income producing nature of that asset and the effect on the respective future earning capacities of the parties – Conclusion based on additional factors that each should receive one of the two facilities in the asset pool – No adjustment for CGT as both parties to retain similar investment property portfolios and have not indicated any intention to sell the residential facilities, thus CGT liabilities and realisation costs disregarded – Brett Hall v Brett Hall (2006) FLC 93-276 cited