Rattray & Macauley [2023] FedCFamC2F 1011

Rattray & Macauley [2023] FedCFamC2F 1011

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: The parties commenced cohabitation in 2006 and separated in April 2013, resulting in a relationship of approximately 7 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 44 years, Wife 53 years

Children

• There were no children of the relationship.

Initial Financial Positions

• At the start of cohabitation in 2006:
  • Husband:
    • Owned a property in City U purchased in 2004 for $170,000 with a deposit of $8,500 and a mortgage of approximately $162,000.
    • Superannuation of $27,850 in one fund, plus other entitlements of unstated value.
  • Wife:
    • Superannuation approximately $17,431. She had established her own business in about 2006, earning up to $120,000 a year.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:
  • The City U property mortgage was jointly paid by both parties.
  • In about 2008 the parties bought the B Street, Suburb C property for $557,000, borrowing $529,000. The deposit came from the wife's savings ($27,850) and a $13,000 loan from her mother.
  • Both parties contributed equally to mortgage loan repayments for the Suburb C property and living expenses.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • Both parties contributed equally as homemakers.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:
  • Post-separation, the wife took sole responsibility for the mortgage payments on the Suburb C property from November 2014. She also met the maintenance, rates and utilities, including $25,000 for home repairs, and withdrew about $62,000 from her superannuation in 2019 for mortgage arrears and repairs.
  • The husband contributed to the City U property mortgage until its sale in late 2014.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • The wife continued to reside in the Suburb C property and managed its financial and maintenance responsibilities.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Husband:
  • Superannuation as at trial: $362,850
• Wife:
  • Superannuation with Super Fund 3: $193,000
• Property Pool:
  • Net non-superannuation assets from the final balance sheet total $995,000 (the Suburb C property less its mortgage). Superannuation totals $555,850. Several modest assets were left off the balance sheet as unrelated to the relationship.
  • The mortgage balance on the Suburb C property was approximately $455,000 against its current value of $1,450,000.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:
  • The court assessed contributions to net assets (excluding superannuation) at 55% to the wife and 45% to the husband. Superannuation was not adjusted; each party kept their own.
  • Contributions' disparity noted as $99,500 in the wife's favour.
• Future Needs:
  • The court added a 5% adjustment in the wife’s favour under the s 75(2) factors, leading to a final division of 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband of the non-superannuation assets.
  • Critical factors included the wife’s workplace psychological injury and lack of work capacity (she receives workers compensation), the husband's greater superannuation, and two mortgage drawdowns by the husband ($25,000 in 2012 and $37,704 in 2013) treated as premature distributions of property to himself.

Final Division & Unique Aspects

• Should the wife retain the Suburb C property, she must pay the husband $398,000 (representing 40% of the net value attributed to him).
• Alternatively, if sold, proceeds should be allocated 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband post-sale costs.
• Unique aspects include the wife's health issues and the husband's unexplained mortgage drawdowns, both weighed under s 75(2). The court was not persuaded that the husband had failed to disclose bank accounts.

Takeaways

• The wife ultimately received a greater share due to her larger post-separation contributions toward the home and her needs based on her health and lack of work capacity.
• The court provided provisions allowing the wife to retain the family home if she can manage the financial settlement, acknowledging her efforts 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.