Pardoe & Pardoe [2023] FedCFamC2F 767

Pardoe & Pardoe [2023] FedCFamC2F 767

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Married in 1989, separated in December 2015, not yet divorced (26 years duration).
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 78, Wife 64.

Children

• Children from Relationship: Four adult children.
• Children from Previous Relationships: The wife has an adult son from a previous relationship.

Initial Financial Positions

The initial financial positions of the parties at the commencement of the marriage are not detailed in the judgment.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The husband was the primary income earner. From about 1991 the parties ran a business together, C Pty Ltd.
  • The wife also worked in the business once family responsibilities allowed.
  • In 2016, after separation, the husband transferred his half share of the business to the wife; the payment he was to receive never came. The company later went into liquidation.
  • The business, C Pty Ltd, at its peak in 2013 had a turnover of approximately $600,000 per annum.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife was the primary carer for the children.
  • Both parties assisted each other in their respective roles throughout the marriage.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • The husband continued to make mortgage payments for a property (K Street) for a period after separation while the wife resided there; he says it fell into arrears because the wife withdrew funds.
  • The husband received about $40,000 from his superannuation (2016), a lump sum pension payment of about $47,000 (2018) and an inheritance of about $70,000 (2019), all after separation, which he has lived off.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Not specifically detailed in the case.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Property Pool:

  • Approximately $300,000 held by the Supreme Court of Victoria from the sale of the parties' properties, plus vehicles held by each party, less about $40,000 owed to the liquidator's accounting firm. On the husband's figures the net pool was about $340,000; neither party had superannuation of any known value.

• Specific Assets Retained by Each Party:

  • The husband retained several motor vehicles, a recreational vehicle and his bank accounts.
  • The wife retained a motor vehicle, her bank accounts, and her interests in C Pty Ltd and D Pty Ltd (a new business she started in 2017 with another person), whose finances she did not disclose.

• Debts:

  • Debts including liquidator's fees for C Pty Ltd to be settled from the remaining sale proceeds.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Assessed at 50% each due to the length of the marriage and shared contributions.
  • The husband contended a 50/50 split regardless of post-separation actions taken by the wife.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • A 10% adjustment in favour of the husband under s 75(2), considering his age (78), homelessness, reliance on a government pension and declining health, the wife's limited but some capacity to work, and the wife's failures in the proceedings under s 75(2)(o). The court declined to take into account the wife's failure to accept a Calderbank offer.
  • Effective percentage allocation: 60% to the husband, 40% to the wife. Once the liquidator's accountants are paid, the court-held funds go approximately $160,000 to the husband and $120,000 to the wife; with the vehicles he keeps, the husband receives about $200,000 of a pool of about $300,000.

Unique Aspects

• The case was resolved on an undefended basis due to the wife's non-compliance with court orders, including her failure to file a trial affidavit. The wife, who was unrepresented, chose to proceed on the husband's evidence alone.
• The wife failed to disclose her financial position thoroughly for both C Pty Ltd and D Pty Ltd, impacting the equitable distribution.
• Raised concerns over the wife’s financial management and responsibilities, particularly her involvement in the businesses and non-compliance leading to increased legal costs for the husband.

Conclusion

A court-ordered 60/40 division favouring the husband reflected the equitable adjustment for his current needs and the impact of the wife’s actions post-separation, including non-compliance and financial non-disclosure. The court’s decision underscores the importance of thorough financial disclosure in property proceedings and the implications of non-compliance on final judgments.

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.