FLAST NEWS
 ·   ·  762 posts
  •  ·  4663 friends

Fruit of the Vine, Roots of the Land: The Westwood Property Battle

🏛️ Introduction

In Westwood & Westwood [2025] FedCFamC1F 94, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia grappled with a high-stakes property settlement involving a multimillion-dollar rural estate, decades-long contributions, and the legal intricacies of superannuation and family trusts. This case not only deals with the valuation and division of assets after a long marriage but also tests the Court’s balancing of historic contributions against current financial realities and emotional stakes.

đź“‹ Facts and Legal Issues

Facts:

  • Mr. Westwood brought significant farming properties into the marriage, valued retrospectively at over $1.5 million.
  • The parties cohabited from 1990 and separated around 2011–2013 (disputed).
  • The couple had two sons, both now adults and professionals.
  • A key issue was the increase in value of land holdings now worth over $10 million due to regional development.
  • The wife continued to reside in the family home post-separation; the husband continued running the farm.
  • The husband’s Superannuation Fund (SMSF) was a significant part of the asset pool but lacked audited statements beyond June 2021, introducing valuation uncertainty.
  • A sale of part of the M Property in 2023 added over $4.5 million in liquidity to the pool.

Legal Issues:

  1. What was the correct valuation and composition of the asset pool (including SMSF)?
  2. What were the parties’ financial and non-financial contributions?
  3. Were any adjustments required under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)?
  4. What division of property would be just and equitable under s 79?

⚖️ Application of Law (IRAC)

Issue

Was it just and equitable under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to adjust property interests, and if so, what were the appropriate percentages based on contributions and future needs?

Rule

As per Hickey & Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143, the Court must follow the four-step approach:

  1. Identify and value the property pool.
  2. Assess contributions (financial, non-financial, parenting, homemaking).
  3. Consider future needs under s 75(2).
  4. Determine if the proposed orders are just and equitable.

Also relevant was Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52, emphasizing the threshold requirement that altering interests must be just and equitable.

Application

Step 1 – Asset Pool

The total notional pool was valued at $18,477,861, including the husband’s superannuation interest of approximately $6.8 million, and cash from property sales.

Step 2 – Contributions

  • The husband brought substantial pre-marital assets, managed the farm, and continued business operations post-separation.
  • The wife made significant homemaker and parenting contributions, supported the husband’s business, and ran a side venture.
  • The Court accepted the husband's family lands as a major initial contribution but credited the wife’s consistent indirect support over 30 years.
  • Contributions were ultimately assessed as 58.5% to the husband and 41.5% to the wife
  • .

Step 3 – Section 75(2) Factors

  • Although the wife was significantly younger, no additional adjustment was made as both parties’ needs could be adequately met.
  • The wife would receive substantial liquid funds and unencumbered property; the husband remained “asset-rich but cash-poor”
  • .

Step 4 – Just and Equitable Outcome

  • The Court concluded that it was just and equitable to make orders under s 79.
  • The wife was to receive:
  • The M Property (~$2.87 million)
  • $4.6 million in cash, structured in instalments
  • Relocation rights for a dwelling
  • A total value of $7.66 million (41.5%)

🧠 Judicial Reasoning

Justice Baumann’s decision-making was guided by:

  • Respect for historical contributions: Recognizing the husband’s inherited land and farming knowledge.
  • Valuation clarity: Accepting expert reports despite the lack of current financial data for the SMSF.
  • Fair weight to non-financial efforts: The wife’s homemaking and parenting, though harder to quantify, were pivotal.
  • Liquidity from recent property sale: Enabled cash distribution to the wife without liquidating ancestral land.
  • Balanced pragmatism: Justice Baumann aimed for finality while accounting for unresolved tax/SMSF issues by ordering further submissions
  • .

Key precedents:

  • Hickey & Hickey: Structured the four-step property division framework.
  • Stanford v Stanford: Emphasized the "just and equitable" gateway.

🧾 Take-Home Lesson

This case underscores the enduring significance of:

  • Documenting contributions (especially non-financial).
  • The strategic importance of liquidity in complex asset pools involving trusts or SMSFs.
  • The need for up-to-date financial records, especially for superannuation funds, to avoid valuation uncertainty.
  • Even where property is emotionally significant, legal principles—not sentiment—guide division.

It also highlights the Court’s capacity to craft nuanced remedies that balance finality with practicality in long-separated, asset-rich cases.

FLAST

Close