Baddour & Baddour [2023] FedCFamC2F 711

Baddour & Baddour [2023] FedCFamC2F 711 Case Report

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Over 16 years, married around 2000, separated on 22 October 2016.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 50, Wife 42.

Children

• Children from the Relationship: Three children, now aged 22, 17, and 13 years old.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband: Owned interests in two properties in Country H, brought no known debts at the start.
• Wife: Contributed $25,000 in savings towards wedding expenses.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:
  • Husband managed family finances and paid for mortgage and living expenses through his work income, income protection payments, and sale of property in Country H.
  • Wife received $15,000 as early inheritance in about 2007, contributing about $6,000 towards household furniture and an appliance, and likely contributed her parenting payment and family tax benefit to living expenses.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • Wife primarily cared for the children and managed homemaking tasks.
  • Husband carried out renovation work on the matrimonial property.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:
  • Since about mid-2016 the wife alone has met the mortgage payments, rates and utilities, while living in the property from 2017.
  • The husband worked part time after separation and has received a disability support pension since about 2019; his child support has been very limited.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • Wife continued as the primary caregiver for the children, with the husband unable to spend time with them since separation.
• Dissipation of Assets:
  • The husband admitted spending about $40,000 over 10 years on gambling, alcohol and adult entertainment; at about $77 a week, the court did not find this was wastage.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Current Assets:
  • C Street, Suburb D Property: $820,000.
  • Husband's interest in Country H property: $31,296.
  • Other home contents and vehicles.
• Liabilities:
  • Home loan: $290,557.
  • Other small debts of $6,817; other claimed debts were left out of the balance sheet.
• Net pool: $565,128.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:
  • 45% to the husband and 55% to the wife, mainly because of the wife's homemaking and child-care roles and her sole payment of the mortgage since 2016.
• Future Needs Adjustments:
  • A further 7.5% to the wife under s 75(2): she is the sole carer of the children and also cares for her mother, and the husband pays only $38 a month in child support. The wife has some reasonable work capacity.
• Final Division:
  • 37.5% for the husband, 62.5% for the wife, resulting in an entitlement of $211,923 for the husband and $353,205 for the wife.

Unique Aspects

• The financial agreement of 7 March 2016 did not meet the requirements to be binding. The wife asked the court to declare it binding under s 90G(1A), but the court was not satisfied that it would be unjust and inequitable if the agreement were not binding, so property orders were made under s 79.
• The wife's Kennon claim failed: apart from an assault at final separation, which the husband admitted, her allegations of family violence were not proved.
• The husband's significant injury and subsequent disability pension were key considerations in assessing contributions and future needs.
• Wife's role as primary caregiver post-separation significantly influenced the final division, as did the husband's limited work capacity due to his health.

Conclusion

The court determined that the wife's contributions as primary caregiver and homemaker, alongside her financial contributions, notably after separation, warranted a larger share of the property pool. This decision also took into account the husband's health constraints and limited financial contributions post-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 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.