Rayment & Pinkham (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 990

Rayment & Pinkham (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 990

Background Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Married in 2004, separated on 20 February 2019, and the husband moved out on 13 June 2020. The relationship spanned approximately 15 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 44, Wife 45

Children

• Children from the Relationship: Two children, X, born in 2007, and Y, born in 2010 (aged 15 and 13 at the hearing).
• Special Needs:
  • Y is diagnosed with ADHD and has an aspect of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD).

Initial Financial Positions

• Both parties did not possess significant assets at the commencement of their relationship.
• Each was entitled to a UK State Pension upon reaching the age of 68.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:
  • Joint bank account contributions, with the husband contributing one third to family expenses, and wife covering the rest.
  • Various financial assets such as properties acquired together, especially Suburb E and Town D.
• Non-Financial Contributions:
  • The wife primarily responsible for homemaking and childcare, attending to children's needs and school activities.
  • The husband frequently deployed overseas, contributing limitedly to childcare.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• The wife maintained sole responsibility for Suburb E and Town D properties' financial and non-financial obligations, including mortgage payments and children's expenses.
• The husband paid child support but otherwise gave no financial support for the children. Under the final parenting orders, the older child lives with the wife and the younger child spends about equal time with each parent.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Wife:

  • Income: Approximately $130,000 per annum.
  • Superannuation: Higher than the husband's.

• Husband:

  • Income: Nearly $181,759 per annum.
  • Receives about $365.30 per week from a UK pension scheme, and holds UK Armed Forces Pension entitlements with substantial likely future benefits (treated as a financial resource, not an asset).

• Property Pool:

  • Suburb E valued at $3,300,000
  • Town D valued at $685,000, wife holding 80% and husband 20%
  • Net pool of the two properties: about $2,372,342 (the net sale proceeds of Suburb E, estimated at $1,687,342 after the loans and sale costs, plus Town D)

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:
  • The wife's financial and non-financial contributions (leaving aside Town D) were assessed at 55%, and the husband's at 45%.
• Future Needs Adjustments:
  • A further 5% adjustment to the wife, giving her 60%, for her greater future needs, her ongoing care of the children, and the husband's greater income earning capacity and financial resources.
  • Rationale included: Wife's health issues impacting earning capacity, primary care responsibilities for children, and the eventual anticipated pension benefit of the husband.

Final Division

• The wife receives a total of 60% of the asset pool, encompassing full interest in Town D and 60% of Suburb E's net sale proceeds after first paying $274,000 to the husband.
• In dollar terms, the wife receives about $1,533,005 and the husband about $948,936.

Unique Aspects or Things That Affected Decisions

• Unique ruling that the husband's UK Armed Forces Pension is treated strictly as a financial resource due to jurisdictional constraints related to pension sharing orders under English law, not an asset.
• The significant caregiving role of the wife, alongside the husband's constrained involvement due to his overseas commitments, heavily impacted the adjustment determinations.
• Continued financial obligations and care arrangements of children majorly contributed to the ruling.

Conclusion

The court order provided a significant adjustment in the wife’s favour, reflecting her substantial contributions both financially and non-financially, addressing her reduced earning capacity due to health concerns, and reflecting the primary role of childcare responsibility.

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.