Sattar & Hayati [2023] FedCFamC2F 1213

Sattar & Hayati [2023] FedCFamC2F 1213

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Married in 2005, divorced in 2016. Cohabitation in Australia commenced in 2006, and the parties separated no later than early to mid 2015. The relationship lasted approximately 9 to 10 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 53, Wife 44

Children

• Children from Relationship: Three children. X, born 2007 (16 years old), Y, born 2009 (14 years old), and Z, born 2012 (10 years old).
• Children from Previous Relationships: Not mentioned.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • No significant assets at the start of cohabitation.
  • In receipt of the Newstart allowance since 2003, limited income reported.

• Wife:

  • Arrived in Australia in late 2006 to commence cohabitation. No significant assets or employment history initially.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The Suburb C property purchased in the husband’s sole name in 2010 for $278,000. It had a mortgage of $222,400 and a $14,000 first home buyer’s grant.
  • An initial cash contribution of approximately $41,600 towards the property's purchase price, potentially sourced from extended family contributions.
  • The husband had not worked since 2003, apart from work as a carer between 2013 and 2015.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife was primarily responsible for homemaking and parenting duties throughout the marriage.
  • The husband was mostly responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the property.
  • The wife handled and managed the family's finances.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• The respondent (husband) remained in the Suburb C property, maintaining it and making mortgage payments, benefitting from sole occupancy since separation.
• The wife continued as the primary caregiver for the children, playing a significant role in their upbringing.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Husband:

  • No significant income or assets disclosed aside from the Suburb C property.
  • Outstanding mortgage with Westpac Banking Corporation: $180,100.

• Wife:

  • A motor vehicle, some cash and household contents, none of them valued. She has had very little paid work since arriving in Australia.

• Property Pool:

  • Consisted of the Suburb C property, for which there was no valuation evidence at all.
  • Other assets included household contents, a motor vehicle each and small savings, none valued; the court inferred these were roughly equal on each side.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Contributions were assessed as equal throughout the relationship, and then 52% to the wife and 48% to the husband overall.
  • The wife's significant post-separation contributions to the care of the three children, after she left the property, justified the slightly higher percentage.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • An additional 3% adjustment in favour of the wife due to her role as the primary caregiver (with minimal child support paid), the care of two more young children from her new relationship, and her limited earning capacity due to her skills, qualifications and English proficiency.

• Final Division: The court ordered division favoured the wife, granting her 55% of the net proceeds from the sale of the Suburb C property, with 45% going to the husband.

Unique Aspects

• The case featured significant procedural delays and inconsistencies in both parties' documentation.
• Because the parties had divorced in 2016, leave to commence proceedings out of time (s 44(3)) was needed. It was granted at the start of the final hearing, which gave the court jurisdiction to make property orders.
• No valuation of the Suburb C property was presented, so the court divided the net sale proceeds by percentage rather than in dollar terms.
• Both parties displayed a marked disagreement regarding the contributions and necessity for future adjustments.

Key Takeaways: Contributions during the relationship were treated as equal. The 55/45 outcome reflected the wife's care of the children after separation and her greater future needs. The case shows the importance of clear documentation and timeliness in legal proceedings.

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.