Bowers & Bowers [2023] FedCFamC2F 1546

Bowers & Bowers [2023] FedCFamC2F 1546

Background Details

• Type: Marriage
• Court: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Judge J Young, 4 December 2023
• Duration: A 22-year relationship, including a marriage of 14 years. The parties began their relationship in early 1993, separated for a time from early 1995, resumed the relationship in 1997, married in 2005 and separated in November 2019.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband is 52, and wife is 44.

Children

• Children from Relationship: Two adult children, a daughter aged 25 and a son aged 19, who both live with the wife and work full time.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • Had no assets of note, and owed two fines of $300 and $1,400, when the relationship resumed in 1997.

• Wife:

  • Had no debts, and received a compensation payment of $45,000 in 1997.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • In 2000, the wife used the compensation payment for the deposit and purchase costs of the Suburb C Property. The rest was funded by a joint mortgage paid from the parties' joint account.
  • The wife contributed her income to the family's joint expenses, and received a number of payments and inheritances that were applied to the support of the family.
  • After her grandmother's death in 2012, the wife inherited the Suburb F Property (worth $400,000 at the time, now $775,000 and about half the asset pool), an old car and about $33,000.
  • The husband inherited $10,000 from his grandfather during the marriage. After an injury in 2007 he had a series of jobs.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife took on the lion's share of running the household and caring for the children.
  • The husband conceded that his contribution to the welfare of the family was limited.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • The wife paid the shortfall between rent and outgoings on the Suburb C Property ($966) and the balance of a loan after separation. The court took these into account in a minor way.
  • The husband made no contribution to the Suburb C Property after separation.
  • The husband withdrew $20,000 from his superannuation in 2020 on the ground of financial hardship. The court did not add it back to the pool, finding it was reasonably incurred expenditure.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife continued to live in the Suburb F Property.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Total Asset Pool: $1,595,297, including superannuation. The main assets were the Suburb F Property ($775,000) and the net proceeds of sale of the Suburb C Property ($462,338), held in trust.

• Husband:

  • Earned $2,400 net per week from September 2022 to August 2023, but had recently stopped work.
  • Retains his bank accounts, furniture, vehicle, superannuation and other assets in his possession.

• Wife:

  • Earns approximately $1,860 net per week, including overtime.
  • Retains the Suburb F Property, her motor vehicle, her superannuation and other assets in her possession.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions Assessment: The parties' contributions were assessed at 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband.

  • Monetary reflection: The 40% differential equates to about $638,118. The wife's 70% share is about $1,116,908 and the husband's 30% share about $478,389.

• Future Needs Adjustments: Neither party sought an adjustment under s 75(2). The court considered several s 75(2) factors and found that they balanced one another out:

  • Both parties have a significant earning capacity.
  • The wife will live rent-free in the Suburb F Property.
  • Both parties have stopped buying illicit substances, freeing up those resources.
  • The husband did not disclose his new partner's financial circumstances, and the court inferred that they would not help his case.
  • The adult children support themselves and are a financial resource for the wife.

• Final Division: 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband, in accordance with the contribution-based assessment. Of the Suburb C sale proceeds, the husband receives $300,103 and the wife $162,235. The jointly held company shares are divided equally.

Unique Aspects

• Both parties used illicit substances for most of the relationship, so the wife's claim that the husband wasted money on them was not taken into account.
• The wife's claims for other post-separation expenses, such as repairs and house fixtures, were not supported by evidence.
• The court found that one pushing incident amounted to family violence, but there was no evidence that it made the wife's contributions more arduous, so it did not justify an adjustment. The court could not find, on the evidence, that the wife's other allegations, which were unparticularised, had occurred.
• Each party retains their own superannuation.

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.