Guan & Shen [2024] FedCFamC2F 117

Guan & Shen [2024] FedCFamC2F 117

Background Details

• A de facto relationship existed between the applicant mother and the respondent father.
• Duration: The relationship commenced in 2005 and ended in April 2021, lasting approximately 16 years.
• Ages at Judgement: Applicant (Mother) - 41 years old; Respondent (Father) - 50 years old.

Children

• Two children from the relationship: X, born in 2012 (aged 12), and Y, born in 2013 (aged 11).

Initial Financial Positions

• Applicant (Mother):

  • The relationship began when she was in her final year of university, working part-time.
  • Savings: $7,500 to $10,000 at the start of the relationship.
  • Owned no property at the beginning.

• Respondent (Father):

  • No formal degree or proper stable job in Australia at the relationship's commencement.
  • Savings: $7,500 to $10,000 at the start of the relationship.
  • Owned no property at the beginning.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The applicant paid deposit amounts for properties, contributed $50,000 for the Suburb E property and $53,500 for the Suburb G property.
  • The respondent's contribution was mainly $15,000 towards the deposit of the Suburb E property, with nominal contributions thereafter.
  • The applicant maintained employment throughout with an annual salary rising to $110,000, also receiving public service maternity leave benefits.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The applicant was the primary caregiver for the children, managed most homemaking tasks, and support from the maternal grandmother was noted.
  • The respondent's non-financial contributions were minimal, with a focus on personal interests over family obligations.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• The applicant continued as the primary caregiver for the children post-separation and maintained the properties.
• The respondent did not contribute financially or non-financially post-separation, with nominal child support insinuations.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Applicant:

  • Continued to reside with the children in the Suburb G property.
  • Income of approximately $3,000 fortnightly, struggling with mortgage payments and child expenses.
  • Superannuation worth approximately $160,000.

• Respondent:

  • Living in the Suburb C property with no disclosed additional assets in Australia.
  • Possesses two properties in Country J valued at approximately AUD $700,000.

• Total Property Pool:

  • Suburb E Property valued at $940,000.
  • Suburb G Property valued at approximately $1.8 million.
  • Suburb C Property valued at approximately $545,000.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Financial and non-financial contributions: Majority by the applicant due to her consistent financial support and role as the sole caregiver for the children.
  • Her contributions were evaluated substantially higher than those of the respondent.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • Considerations of 80% allocation to the applicant, owing to her primary care responsibilities and financial immobility post-separation.

• Final Division:

  • Property distribution of 80% to the applicant and 20% to the respondent, following judicial adjustment for unequal contributions and needs.

Unique Aspects

• The case highlights the failure of the binding financial agreement due to non-compliance with legal advice requirements and documentation irregularity.
• Issues included the respondent exercising undue influence and threats contributing to unconscionable conduct, driving legal grounds for setting aside the financial agreement.
• The substantiated absence of the respondent's involvement post-separation increased the equitable considerations for the applicant's share of assets and responsibilities.

Main Takeaways

• The court decided in favor of the applicant, attributing a larger share of property assets to her, acknowledging her primary caregiving role and greater financial contributions.
• The court emphasized revisiting and addressing binding financial agreements' validity, underscoring the significance of proper legal procedures and advice.
• The judgment took into account the ongoing needs and stability of children post-separation, reiterating future care as a pivotal degree in financial settlements.