Kazi Portolesi Lawyers Logo

(02) 9728 3366

1300 733 039

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Career
  • Legal Services
    • Personal Injury
    • Trusted Family Law Firm in Sydney
    • Commercial Law & Litigation
    • Criminal Law
    • Property & Conveyancing
    • Commercial Property and Finance
    • Wills & Estate Planning
  • News
    • Civil Litigation
    • Contracts
    • Criminal Law
    • Family Law
    • Personal Injury
    • Property
    • Wills and Estates
    • General
  • For Clients
    • Your Secure Documents
  • Contact Us

Special Contributions

June 6, 2017 By Kazi Portolesi Lawyers

 

Fields and Smith [2015] FamCAFC 57

In Fields and Smith the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Bryant CJ, Ainslie-Wallace J and May J) their honours set-aside a decision made by Murphy J in a “big money case” worth some $42million.

The parties were married at a young age (the wife was 18 and the husband 21). The marriage was some 29 years long and resulted in three children being born of the marriage (who were adults by the time the matter reached hearing.

The issue at hearing was the quantification of the asset pool. The wife sought a division on a 50/50 basis. The husband sought division of a 70/30 basis on the grounds of his “special skill” and business acumen. The major asset of the parties were property holdings and entities involved in a construction company founded by the husband in the course of the marriage. The wife was a homemaker though a shareholder in the husband’s construction company.

At trial, Murphy J rejected the notion of special skill in accordance with the authorities (Kane & Kane and Hoffman & Hoffman). The notion of a special skill has now been removed.

Murphy J however adjusted the property division on the basis of a 60/40 split in favour of the husband noting that the wife’s contributions as homemaker would have been diminished in the last third of the marriage given the children reached adulthood.

On Appeal, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia affirmed the removal of the concept of “special skill” and further re-exercised discretion. On Appeal their honours found that the diminution of the wife’s contributions as homemaker had to be set-off against the husband’s own diminution in his involvement with his company. This was a marriage where the contributions were equal and “substantial and significant”.

Filed Under: Family Law

ONLINE ENQUIRY

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Our Advantages

  • After Hours Appointments
  • Fixed Fees
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Multilingual
  • Reliable
  • Efficient
  • Use Plain Language

Legal Services

  • Personal Injury
  • Trusted Family Law Firm in Sydney
  • Commercial Law & Litigation
  • Criminal Law
  • Property & Conveyancing
  • Commercial Property and Finance
  • Wills & Estate Planning

Contact Us

  • Level 1, 113-115 The Crescent
    Fairfield NSW 2165
  • Suite 416/49 Queens Road
    Five Dock NSW 2046
  • (02) 9728 3366
  • (02) 9724 4178
  • 1300 733 039
Copyright © 2021 · Privacy Policy · Log in