Hammond & Newtown [2023] FedCFamC2F 165

Hammond & Newtown [2023] FedCFamC2F 165

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Cohabitation began in either 2001 or 2003; married in 2012; separated in 2014; divorced in 2018. The court described their financial interdependence as running from 2001 or 2003 to 2014-2016, some 11 to 15 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 50 years old; Wife 57 years old.

Children

• Children from the Relationship: Three daughters aged 19, 16, and 13.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • Nominal savings and some superannuation.
  • Owned a motor vehicle and some Australian shares.
  • Held a HECS debt and minor credit card debt.

• Wife:

  • At least $100,000 in cash savings.
  • Owns bank shares in Australia and the UK.
  • A motor vehicle and some superannuation.
  • Received around $80,000 from her previous marriage settlement.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Wife contributed $10,250 towards the purchase of a property, and two lump sums totalling $50,000 towards the mortgage.
  • Husband contributed $6,365 in stamp duty and received significant financial gifts from his parents ($50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 of a $210,000 gift).

• Non-Financial Contributions:

  • Wife primarily undertook homemaking tasks and child care.
  • Husband provided financial support while maintaining additional job roles, yet also participated in family activities.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • The wife managed the mortgage payments for the Suburb E property.
  • Husband managed finances related to the C Town property.

• Non-Financial Contributions:

  • The wife continued to cater to the full-time care of the children.
  • Limited evidence of dissipation of assets was seen, with both parties maintaining accountability to their assets post-separation.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Wife:

  • Works full-time as a health professional earning approximately $190,000 per annum.
  • Has sole care of the children.

• Husband:

  • Works part-time, earning $182,000 per annum.

• Total Property Pool:

  • Net value decreased after the husband was allowed to re-open the case with new valuation evidence, and because of the capital gains tax on the investment property.
  • Non-superannuation pool about $2,143,076; superannuation $700,167 (wife $230,288, husband $469,879).

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Non-superannuation: a 5% loading in favour of the husband because of the gifts from his parents; all other contributions were sufficiently equal.
  • Superannuation: contributions equal.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • Non-superannuation: an adjustment of 10% in favour of the wife for her age and proximity to retirement, declining health, and responsibility for supporting the children living with her.
  • Superannuation: an adjustment of 5% in favour of the wife for her age and health.

Unique Aspects

• A significant component of the case involved rectifying the property valuations post-trial, impacting the balance sheet's outcome.
• Notable was the disparity between anticipated and actual property values leading to revisions of distribution proportions.
• Contributions were further complicated due to claims and corroboration issues, notably revolving around gifts, savings, and the wife's medical condition.

Final Division

• Non-Superannuation Assets: Resulted in a 55/45 split in favour of the wife. The wife keeps the Suburb E home and pays the husband $330,000; the husband keeps the net sale proceeds of the C Town property and bears its capital gains tax.
• Superannuation: A splitting order of $155,000 to the wife, bringing her to 55% ($385,288) and the husband to 45% ($314,879).

Main Takeaways:

• Gifts from one party's parents earned that party a modest contributions loading, but it was outweighed by the other party's future needs.
• The future needs adjustment rested on age, health and responsibility for the children.

This case exemplifies how asset valuation and adjustment to initial agreements post-trial can significantly alter the distribution in property settlements.

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.