Weighing substantial financial contributions against domestic contributions carried out under difficult circumstances

Weighing substantial financial contributions against domestic contributions carried out under difficult circumstances

Introduction

The courts are required to assess the parties’ respective contributions in the context of a property. This often involves weighing the financial contributions of one party against the contributions to the welfare of the family of the other party. Daymond v Daymond [2014] FamCAFC 212 is a recent decision of the Full Court which illustrates how the court goes about this task where it must weigh substantial financial contributions against the fulfilment of domestic responsibilities under trying circumstances.

Background

This case was an appeal against the decision of Murphy J wherein the parties’ contributions were assessed as being 50/50. The appellant husband argued that he should have received an adjustment on account of his initial financial contributions, which accounted for 74% of a net asset pool of $2,200,000.

The parties’ relationship had unfolded over the course of 21 years, including three periods of separation amounting to roughly 10 years. They had a child, Q, who had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.

The parties’ main initial financial contributions consisted in a share in a business and a professional practice for the husband and home and superannuation entitlement for the wife. The husband was mainly responsible for all financial contributions during the course of the relationship, including an inheritance that he received towards the end of the relationship. The wife, on the other hand, was primarily responsible for the care of Q. These responsibilities were made more onerous on account of Q’s special needs and the husband’s minimal assistance in tending to those needs.

The Full Court’s Reasoning

Counsel for husband referred the court to a various cases where relatively similar factual circumstances had produced a substantially different outcome with respect to the court’s assessment of the parties’ contributions. The Full Court rejected the submission that the cases indicated that the trial judge was incorrect in his assessment of the parties’ contributions. The facts that the distinguished the instant case from the aforementioned cases consisted in the wife’s care of Q in circumstances where the husband had spent almost all of his spare time at a pub and the wife’s initial financial contributions. On this basis, the Full Court dismissed the husband’s appeal.
Final Thoughts

This case underscores the significance of contributions to the welfare of the family under difficult circumstances. And more particularly, it shows how such contributions may be relied upon in diminishing the significance of substantial financial contributions.
The post-separation of a parent/homemaker are given a real, and not token, weight