Page & Gaubert (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1089

Page & Gaubert (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1089 Case Study

Background Details

• Court: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Parramatta, Judge Newbrun, 24 August 2023
• Relationship Type: De facto (the judgment refers to the parties as the wife and the husband)
• Duration: Approximately 2 years in total, made up of three periods: 24 September 2016 to 29 January 2017, 15 March 2017 to 2 September 2018, and 6 October 2018 to 3 January 2019.
• Ages at Judgment: The wife is 44 years old, the husband is 58 years old.

Children

• There were no children from the relationship.

Initial Financial Positions

• The wife:

  • Owned a Motor Vehicle 6 and a pet.
  • Superannuation valued at about $69,000.
  • Employed with an annual package of $130,000.

• The husband:

  • His assets at the start were unclear; by the time he bought the property in 2017 he had an inheritance and savings of about $331,600.
  • Superannuation within a self-managed fund valued at $268,600.
  • Purchased a property for $970,000 using $331,600 from inheritance/savings for deposit and a $679,000 mortgage in his name.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The husband contributed the bulk of the finances: mortgage repayments, outgoings, and utilities.
  • The wife gave the husband about $50,000 in cash towards the mortgage and bills between January 2018 and March 2019, paid a $5,577 architect's fee, and paid rent, bonds, moving costs and groceries, some of it from an inheritance of about $159,000 from her late father.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife did most of the maintenance of the overgrown property and provided significant emotional and practical support to the husband during a difficult period in his professional life.
  • The wife assisted administratively in the husband's business without remuneration.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • The husband sold the property in early 2020 for approximately $980,000. Of the net proceeds of $212,000, $75,000 was held in trust and later paid into the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife lived at the property from separation until March 2020 and continued to maintain it.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Current Assets and Debts:
  • Non-superannuation assets: $80,500.
  • Superannuation entitlements: husband $268,600, wife $17,380.
  • The $75,000 held in the Supreme Court was ordered to be paid $42,800 to the husband and $32,200 to the wife. Each party keeps their own superannuation.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Determined 70% in favour of the husband and 30% for the wife for non-superannuation assets.
  • No contributions from either party to the other’s superannuation entitlements were recognised.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • Further adjustment of 10% in favour of the wife, considering the husband's far greater earning capacity and superannuation, and the effect of the wife's car accident on her capacity to work (she drew down about $42,198 of her superannuation).

• Final Division: Allocated 60% to husband and 40% to wife regarding non-superannuation assets, with $16,100 disparity in favour of husband.

Unique Aspects

• Complexity due to the post-separation sale of the property and the dispute over the funds held in trust.
• Health issues of the wife post a car accident, impacting her work capacity and impacting future needs assessment.
• Significant adjustments due to disparities in superannuation and earning capacity post-relationship.

Main Takeaways

• The case exemplifies the importance of quantifying contributions precisely, especially within shorter de facto relationships.
• Balances practical and indirect contributions, including emotional support and unpaid work in the other party's business, against direct financial inputs.
• Shows an adjustment for future needs where there is a large disparity in earning capacity and 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 between de facto partners 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.