Amos & Louis [2022] FedCFamC2F 1074

Amos & Louis [2022] FedCFamC2F 1074 (29 August 2022)

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Began cohabiting in 2001, married in 2003, and separated permanently in 2016. Divorce finalised on 7 April 2019, resulting in an approximate 15-year partnership.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband is 61 years old, wife is 56 years old.

Children

• Children from Relationship: Three children: X, aged 16, and twins K and L, aged 7.
• Children from Previous Relationships: Husband has two children from a prior relationship: Mr M, aged 33, and Ms N, aged 30.
• Current Living Arrangement: Children have primarily lived with the wife since separation.
• Special Needs: Child K has been attending speech and occupational therapy.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • Owned properties at W Street and U Street in City V.
  • Initial net equity across properties approximated $100,000 - $120,000.
  • Savings: $2,000.
  • Owned a motor vehicle and personal belongings.
  • Had about 14 years of superannuation entitlements before cohabitation, though no valuation was available.

• Wife:

  • Owned Z Street, Suburb AB property with an estimated $25,000 equity.
  • Savings: $1,000.
  • Owned a motor vehicle and personal belongings.
  • Superannuation balance of approximately $26,000.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband received gifts from his mother totalling $228,000 in 2002 to 2004, applied to mortgage payments, shares and household expenses.
  • The wife received an inheritance of about $30,000 in 2008, applied to the cost of a swimming pool at one of the parties' hotels in Country E.
  • Husband was hurt on duty and medically discharged, and received a hurt on duty pension and various lump sum and settlement payments.
  • Both parties worked in public service jobs during cohabitation, contributing incomes for household needs and investments.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife primarily managed homemaking duties and childcare, especially during her maternity leave and the husband's health-related work cessation.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband contributed $300 weekly in child support and covered school fees in Country E.
  • Wife predominantly responsible for child-related expenses post-relocation to Australia in 2019.
  • Husband breached an injunction by commuting $600,000 of his superannuation in January 2021. Of that, $415,000 was later divided by consent as partial property settlements ($315,000 to the wife and $100,000 to the husband), which were added back to the pool.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Wife continued as the primary caregiver after returning to Australia.
  • Husband occasionally visited from Country E.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Husband:

  • No disclosed income outside of superannuation from Employer O.
  • Retains entitlement to superannuation defined benefit pension worth approximately $1,283,290.
  • Receives fortnightly hurt on duty payments as pension.

• Wife:

  • Earns $816 weekly from part-time employment.
  • Superannuation balance of $237,896.
  • Continues to incur property-related and living costs post-separation.

• Property Pool:

  • Total property pool (including superannuation) valued at $3,202,700.
  • Non-superannuation property valued at $1,681,514, including hotel and land interests in Country E.
  • Superannuation valued at $1,521,186. The court dealt with superannuation as a separate pool (a two-pool approach) and rejected the wife's significant add-back claims.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Non-superannuation: 37.5% to wife, 62.5% to husband.
  • Superannuation: 25% to wife, 75% to husband.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • Additional 7.5% adjustment to wife, accounting for childcare responsibilities and income disparity.

• Final Division:

  • Wife to receive 45% of non-superannuation and 32.5% of superannuation assets.
  • Requires husband to pay an additional $48,500 to the wife, plus a superannuation splitting order of $256,489 in her favour from his defined benefit pension. The wife takes $756,830 of the non-superannuation pool and $494,385 of the superannuation.

Unique Aspects

• Superannuation and Pension: The case included the challenge of addressing a defined benefit pension split while considering breaches of court orders.
• International Complications: The financial entanglement involved properties and commitments in both Australia and Country E.
• Disclosure Issues: Extensive credibility and disclosure issues were raised against both parties, with significant contention on both financial and non-financial matters.
• Parenting Contributions: Wife’s contribution as primary and continuing caregiver was highly significant, influencing the division.

Conclusion

The final orders reflect careful consideration of both early contributions and current needs, with special regard to the welfare of the children and the international dimension of the property portfolio. The 7.5% future needs adjustment reflects the wife's continuing care of the three children and its effect on her earning capacity.

The law since this decision

This case was decided before 10 June 2025. From that date the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) sets out the steps for a property settlement in s 79(3) to (5), and the court must consider the effect of family violence on each party's contributions (s 79(4)(ca)) and on their current and future circumstances (s 79(5)(a)), and any material wastage of property (s 79(5)(d)). In Western Australia, a property case between married couples is decided under that Act in the Family Court of Western Australia. A case between de facto partners in Western Australia is decided under the Family Court Act 1997 (WA), which has not adopted those 2025 changes.