Angove & Cranz [2023] FedCFamC2F 633

Angove & Cranz [2023] FedCFamC2F 633

Background Details

• Applicant: the de facto husband
• Respondent: the de facto wife
• Type: De facto relationship
• Duration: Approximately 17 years. Commenced in early 2003 and ended on a final basis on 2 December 2019.
• Ages: Applicant de facto husband 44 years old, Respondent de facto wife 41 years old.

Children

• Children from Relationship: One child, a daughter, born in 2004 and 18 years old at the time of trial.

Initial Financial Positions

• Applicant:

  • Non-superannuation assets of about $43,000.
  • Superannuation of approximately $10,000.
  • Worked full-time with a greater income than the respondent and continued to work throughout the relationship.

• Respondent:

  • Owner of property at B Street, Suburb C with approximately $60,000 equity.
  • Motor Vehicle valued at about $6,000.
  • Nominal superannuation entitlements at the start of the relationship.
  • Managed Suburb C property mortgage outgoings through her bank accounts.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Applicant used savings for the purchase of a joint property soon after cohabitation commenced.
  • Both parties worked initially; the respondent left work just before their daughter's birth in 2004 and did not resume paid work until November 2018. The applicant worked throughout.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Respondent was the primary carer for their daughter from her birth in 2004 until early 2017.
  • Applicant undertook renovation works on the parties' properties as well as working full time.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • Continued payment of Suburb E property mortgage and insurance by the applicant.
  • Covered expenses related to their daughter's education and various personal needs, and at times serviced the mortgage over the Suburb C property.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Their daughter has lived with the applicant since early 2017, and he has been her main carer since then.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Applicant:

  • Earns approximately $122,000 per annum.
  • Holds $448,065 in non-superannuation assets, with superannuation of $306,352.

• Respondent:

  • Last earned approximately $17,500 per annum until mid‑2021.
  • Holds $426,260 in non-superannuation assets with superannuation of $2,303.

• Assets and Debts:

  • Suburb E property has net equity of $441,587.
  • Suburb C property, in the respondent's name and rented out since 2003, is valued at $390,000 (equity about $374,934).
  • Total non-superannuation pool: about $1,249,255 ($874,321 plus the Suburb C equity). Superannuation pool: $308,655.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Contributions assessed at 57.5% to the applicant and 42.5% to the respondent, considering the parties' initial positions, their different roles and the resulting employment opportunities for the applicant, his support of their daughter's care, and the use of property since separation.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • Adjustment of 10% in favour of the respondent for non-superannuation assets and 7.5% for superannuation, largely because of the discrepancy in the parties' earning capacities relative to the size of the pool.

• Final Division:

  • 52.5% of non-superannuation pool to the respondent and 47.5% to the applicant, with an equal division of the superannuation pool. The applicant pays the respondent about $32,700 for the assets other than Suburb C, and the Suburb C property is to be sold, with any capital gains tax met on the respondent's behalf before distribution.

Unique Aspects

• The respondent did not meaningfully participate in the trial or give disclosure, and the court inferred this was to resist property orders; it ordered the Suburb C property to be sold.
• The court had general regard to a property's neglected condition when accepting its valuation, but refused to deduct a fixed $34,000 for it.
• The respondent's unexplained withdrawals of $29,000 from her own account were not added back, partly because there was no evidence of the balance at separation and partly because the applicant had also paid legal fees from post-separation funds.

This case highlights the complexity entailed in balancing historical contributions and future needs in a long-standing de facto relationship. The court paid close attention to financial upkeep, equity, and caregiving roles throughout their relationship and after separation.

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 90SM(3) to (5), and the court must consider the effect of family violence on each party's contributions (s 90SM(4)(ca)) and on their current and future circumstances (s 90SM(5)(a)), and any material wastage of property (s 90SM(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.