Woodward & Woodward [2023] FedCFamC2F 828

Woodward & Woodward [2023] FedCFamC2F 828 Case Report

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Commenced relationship in 1998 or 1999 (based on conflicting claims), wife moved to Australia 2000 or 2001, separated in June 2020. Total duration approximately 20-22 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband aged 70, Wife 58.

Children

• No children from the marriage.
• Wife has one daughter from a previous relationship, now an adult.
• Husband has two sons from a previous relationship, now adults.

Initial Financial Positions

• At commencement, the husband owned properties with mortgage debt and unpaid rates amounting to about $410,000. These properties were sold between 2003-2006.
• Exact initial financial details were not fully clear due to lack of documentation.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:
  • Sold properties from 2003 to 2006 with disputed net returns; husband claims $300,000, wife claims $100,000.
  • Operated businesses together from 2003, and from 2008 a business run from a property they bought, through a company and a family trust that owns several properties.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • The wife maintained involvement in the business operations.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• The husband withdrew about $843,645 (including $94,950 of his superannuation) shortly before or after separation, which he did not account for. About $285,000 was said to have gone into cryptocurrency, which he said he lost to a scam, and about $165,000 to a woman overseas.
• The husband was restrained by a domestic violence order made in mid-2020 after he assaulted the wife, and was convicted of aggravated assault in late 2021.
• He later entered the business premises and removed goods, and was convicted of contravening the domestic violence order, stealing and other offences.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Asset Pool: Net assets of $2,692,991, including the business (balance sheet value $678,019), the family trust properties, other real estate and an add-back of $750,000 for the husband's unexplained withdrawals (the $843,645 less $100,000 allowed for his support after separation). With superannuation of $81,361, the total was $2,774,352.
• Assets Distribution:
  • Wife retains the business, the family trust and its properties (subject to the mortgage and the trust's debt to the company), and one interstate property.
  • Husband receives four other properties, subject to their mortgages, and keeps the cattle, vehicles and chattels in his possession. The $750,000 add-back counts towards his share.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions: Agreed by parties to be equal.
• Future Needs:
  • An adjustment of about $218,000 (about 8% of the pool) in favour of the husband under s 75(2), because the wife keeps the income-producing business and the husband, at 70, is likely to have difficulty finding employment.
  • Final division: 54% to husband, 46% to wife.

Unique Aspects

• Significant disputes regarding dissipation and concealment of assets by the husband.
• The husband's withdrawals were lost in reckless investments or otherwise dealt with in an undisclosed way, so they were added back to the pool on his side rather than treated as gone.
• The litigation was marked by a lack of co-operation and, particularly by the husband, incomplete disclosure.

Main Takeaways

• Equal contributions during the marriage were acknowledged.
• The husband's dissipation of about $750,000 was dealt with by adding it back to his side of the pool.
• The adjustment in the husband's favour reflected his age and the wife keeping the business, not the conduct of either party.

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.