Appeal in Divorce Case of Married Couple with Two Minor Children
Blatch & Blatch (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1A 14 (17 February 2023)
This case involves a married couple who separated in 2018, have two minor children and are currently in the process of appealing a court order which provided for the husband to pay the wife a cash settlement, a lump sum child support payment and for the husband to be responsible for one half of the children’s private school fees. The court must now determine the merits of the husband's appeal, assess the respective contributions of the parties, their current circumstances, and the best interests of the children, and assess the husband's ability to pay the amounts ordered.
Facts:
This case involves a married couple who separated in 2018 and have two minor children. At the time of the trial, the asset pool included the former matrimonial home, some savings, a motor vehicle, motor cycle and superannuation. The primary judge found that the wife had been the primary care of the children since separation, and the husband had ceased paying child support to the wife in 2021. The orders provided for the husband to pay the wife a cash settlement representing 60 per cent of the parties’ non-superannuation net assets, a lump sum child support payment and for the husband to be responsible for one half of the children’s private school fees.
In the event the husband is unable to pay the wife the amounts ordered, the former matrimonial home is to be sold and the net sale proceeds used to fund the payments. The husband is now appealing these orders. The court must now determine the merits of the husband's appeal and consider the respective contributions of the parties, their current circumstances, and the best interests of the children. The court will also consider whether the orders made by the primary judge were fair, just and equitable for all concerned. The court will also assess the husband's ability to pay the amounts ordered.
Issue:
The issue in this case is whether the orders made by the primary judge were fair, just and equitable for all concerned, taking into account the respective contributions of the parties, their current circumstances and the best interests of the children.
Applicable law:
Analysis:
The husband is arguing that the primary judge should have found bias in her decision as well as failed to engage with relevant evidence. The court found that the argument of bias was not valid as the primary judge's decision was based on valid evidence, and the argument of failing to engage with relevant evidence was not addressed as the husband did not provide any details. The court also found that the husband's argument of a new property valuation being in evidence was incorrect and therefore Ground 1 failed. The court also found that the husband's argument of a different amount of add-backs to the balance sheet was not the same argument that he presented at trial and therefore Ground 2 also failed.
Conclusion:
The appeal of Orders 29 and 30(b) made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) on 31 August 2022 has been refused, and Appeal no. NAA 215 of 2022 has been dismissed. The appellant has been ordered to pay the respondent's costs of $20,000 within 28 days.
Case: Blatch & Blatch (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1A 14
Judgment of: TREE, CHRISTIE & SCHONELL JJ
Counsels:
