Yuan & Shun (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 668

Yuan & Shun (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 668

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: The parties met in 2010, began living together in 2011 and married in 2012. The wife says they separated under one roof in 2015; the husband says mid-2017.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 51, Wife 32

Children

• Children from Relationship: One child, X, born in 2012 (aged 10 at the time of judgment).
• Special Circumstances: Child X has not seen the husband since 2018 and is solely under the wife's care.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • Owned the Suburb E property from 2007, purchased for $380,000 with a $300,000 home loan.
  • Lack of clear asset valuation at the start of the relationship due to non-disclosure.

• Wife:

  • Savings of approximately $50,000 before the marriage.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband generally managed finances, controlled family tax benefits and made initial contributions through home ownership.
  • Wife's financial input was limited due to control by the husband.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Wife was primarily responsible for homemaking and childcare, ceased work and study upon request of the husband, and resumed part-time employment and study later in the relationship.
  • The wife described the husband as controlling, jealous and abusive; there were several police interventions and intervention orders.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Wife continued full caregiving responsibilities for child X post-separation, with no support from the husband.

• Financial Concerns:

  • The husband engaged in significant financial wastage, including gambling, and significant transactions he did not explain or disclose.
  • Wife took on debts (a personal loan of $30,000 and $80,000 borrowed from her mother for legal and living expenses).

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Assets:

  • Suburb E property appraised at $785,000 with a mortgage of approximately $256,000 unpaid.
  • Wife has a superannuation of $26,979, while the husband's current superannuation is undisclosed.

• Debts and Liabilities:

  • The husband's case outline asserted an Australian Taxation Office debt of $350,000, a car loan and other debts, but there was no evidence of any of them.
  • The wife's estimated legal costs were about $106,389, most still unpaid, in addition to the loans above.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Due to inadequate disclosure and substantial financial inconsistency by the husband, a percentage division of assets was deemed impractical.
• The court ordered the Suburb E property to be sold and awarded the wife the entire net equity, along with her superannuation and other assets under her control, considering the contributions during the relationship (including the husband's initial contribution), the wife's significant post-separation contributions, the s 75(2) factors, and the husband's non-disclosure and unexplained waste. The husband must indemnify the wife against his asserted debts.

Unique Aspects or Things That Affected Decisions

• Family Violence: The husband was convicted in 2022 of multiple offences against the wife committed in 2017, and is serving a prison sentence.
• Non-disclosure and Financial Wastage: The husband's non-disclosure and evidence of significant financial waste, particularly in gambling, led the court to deny any of the liquid assets to the husband.
• Unsettled Debts: The husband's claimed debts were not supported by any evidence.
• Non-participation in the Trial: After his adjournment application was refused, the husband's lawyers withdrew and he chose not to take part, so the trial proceeded undefended.

Main Takeaways

• The significant focus was on the wife's financial and non-financial contributions under duress from family violence, and the lack of financial transparency by the husband hindered equitable distribution.
• The case highlighted statutory considerations, particularly around non-disclosure and financial waste, resulting in an atypical decision to award the entire discernible asset pool to one party in light of unusual circumstances.

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.