Justice Divided: Landmark 70-30 Property Split Amid Family Violence and Non-Compliance in Zuen & Lhao
Introduction
In a pivotal ruling, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed the financial settlement in Zuen & Lhao [2024] FedCFamC1F 689, a case marked by family violence, procedural non-compliance, and contentious financial contributions. The judgment delivered by Justice Altobelli highlights the nuanced approach required to balance property interests, assess contributions, and ensure justice and equity in family law disputes.
Facts and Issues
Facts:
- The parties married in 2006 and separated in 2016, sharing one child who has since reached adulthood.
- The wife alleged prolonged domestic violence and coercive control, which significantly impacted her contributions during the marriage.
- The husband, owner of the primary asset (former matrimonial home), withdrew substantial marital funds post-separation.
- Non-disclosure and procedural non-compliance by the husband complicated the case.
- The wife sought a 100:0 adjustment, citing her greater domestic and financial contributions and the hardship caused by family violence.
Issues:
- How should contributions, including financial, non-financial, and homemaker roles, be evaluated under Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975?
- To what extent does family violence under Kennon v Kennon impact contributions?
- What adjustments, if any, should be made for future needs under Section 75(2)?
- Is a 70:30 division just and equitable given the husband's non-compliance and the wife's needs?
Application of Law
Contribution Assessment:
Under Section 79, the Court followed the four-step approach from Hickey v Hickey to identify assets, assess contributions, and ensure justice and equity. The wife’s business contributions and domestic labor during the marriage outweighed the husband's financial input, particularly in light of his gambling and misuse of funds.
Family Violence Consideration:
The principles from Kennon v Kennon were applied, recognizing that the husband's family violence rendered the wife's contributions significantly more arduous. Evidence, including medical reports and corroborated testimony, substantiated this claim.
Future Needs:
Section 75(2) adjustments accounted for the wife’s poor health, limited income capacity, and need for ongoing care, justifying a further 20% adjustment in her favor.
Non-Compliance:
Citing Weir v Weir and Black and Kellner, the Court inferred adverse conclusions against the husband due to deliberate non-disclosure, bolstering the wife’s position.
Judgment Analysis
Reasoning:
Justice Altobelli emphasized the husband’s procedural non-compliance and the wife’s credible evidence of contributions and family violence. A 70:30 division was ordered to account for the wife’s significant needs, the husband’s depleted contributions post-separation, and the equitable distribution of liabilities.
Cited Precedents:
- Kennon v Kennon: Influence of family violence on contributions.
- Weir v Weir: Adverse inferences from non-disclosure.
- Hickey v Hickey: Framework for property settlements.
- Britt & Britt: Nexus of family violence and contributions.
Take-Home Lesson
Family law disputes demand full disclosure, as non-compliance can severely disadvantage a party. Moreover, courts increasingly recognize the lasting impact of family violence, ensuring equitable outcomes for victims by factoring such adversity into property settlements.
