Yarrow & Yarrow (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 99

Yarrow & Yarrow (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 99

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: A 13-year relationship.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband's age not specified, Wife's age not specified.

Children

• Children from Relationship: Not specified in the provided material.
• Specific Needs: The proceedings involved consideration of children, but no details about their ages or specific needs are included in the provided document.

Initial Financial Positions

• Specific initial financial positions at the start of the relationship are not explicitly detailed in the provided material.

Contributions During The Relationship

• Financial Contributions: Both the husband and wife were well-educated and qualified professionals who had been employed in the finance sector before and throughout the marriage.
• Non-financial Contributions: Details of homemaker and childcare contributions were not provided in the document.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Property Arrangements: The wife continued to reside in the property located at F Street, City E, Tasmania, post-separation and was responsible for all outgoings and utility expenses of the property.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Assets Considered:
  • Real Estate: Property at F Street, City E, Tasmania, and G Road, City C in the UK.
  • Superannuation and other personal effects: Each party retained their superannuation, personal effects, chattels, furniture, and vehicles in their possession.
• Distribution:
  • Upon the sale of both properties, the proceeds are to be distributed to achieve a balanced division of net assets as per the court's orders.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • On the basis of contributions alone, the wife was assessed to receive 52% and the husband 48% of the net asset pool.
  • The net asset pool was valued at approximately $2,056,631, meaning the wife would receive about $1,069,448 and the husband $987,182.

• Future Needs Considerations:

  • If the wife relocates to the United Kingdom, the children (who may not relocate) will live with the husband. The court allowed about 8% to the husband for his care of the children and about 2% back to the wife for the add-back argument and her temporarily lower earning capacity, giving 54% to the husband and 46% to the wife.
  • If the wife does not relocate and provides an undertaking, the adjustment of future needs favoured her at 57%, while the husband’s share was 43%, reflecting slightly more future parenting, lower income for the foreseeable future and possible health complications.

Unique Aspects

• Relocation Conditions: The division had specific adjustments based on whether the wife chose to relocate or stay.
• Judicial Process: These are further reasons after an appeal. The Full Court found the first-instance reasons on s 75(2)(b) and (n) inadequate and sent the property case back to the same judge, who explained the reasoning and confirmed the original orders.
• Relevant Legal Orders: The final orders allow variability in asset division based on future actions taken by the wife, particularly concerning relocation.

Main Takeaways

• The division of assets and responsibilities was closely tied to the future actions of the wife, particularly her decision regarding relocation.
• The assessment considered both immediate financial equity and potential future financial needs of the parties.
• The case highlights considerations of ongoing financial responsibilities and parenting roles in the context of property and financial settlements in a marriage dissolution.

Appeal

This decision followed an appeal by the wife. In Yarrow & Yarrow [2022] FedCFamC1A 135 (1 September 2022) the Full Court upheld one property ground (inadequate reasons about s 75(2)(b) and (n)) and rejected the parenting grounds, and in Yarrow & Yarrow (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 171 (20 October 2022) it sent the property claim back to the trial judge. In this decision the trial judge gave further reasons and declared that the orders of 24 December 2021 were just and equitable.

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.