In Carter [2014] FCCA 1958 (29 August 2014) Judge Scarlett considered a relationship which lasted 11 years where there were no children of the marriage. The asset pool comprised net non-superannuation assets worth $2,187,049 (para 98) and superannuation of $438,522 (para 99).
As to initial contributions, the Court said (from para 16):
“… At the time the parties commenced their relationship in 1998, it appears that:
a) The wife was employed as a (omitted), earning between $300 and $400 per week;
b) She had no assets or savings of any great value;
c) The husband was (and still is) a (occupation omitted), then earning approximately $425,000 gross per year;
d) He owned seven properties which had been purchased between 1984 and 1996 for a total of $1,420,000;
e) These properties were sold between 2002 and 2007 for a total of $4,582,000.
[17] The husband claims, but the wife does not concede, that at the commencement of cohabitation he owned personal property worth about $32,000 and had a variety of other interests, including superannuation worth, he asserts, upwards of $300,000.
( … )
[20] Between 1998 and 2005 the husband purchased a further seven properties for a combined purchase price of $4,910,100. He sold them between 2006 and 2008 for a combined sale price of $6,920,000.”
It was “either agreed, or not contested, that … the wife gained various qualifications” during the relationship and also “worked in various occupations” (para 18).
When assessing contributions Judge Scarlett said (from para 102):
“… … the wife made no initial financial contributions. She had no assets or savings of any value and was earning a modest income …
[103] By contrast, the husband was earning a considerable income … approximately $425,000 per annum, owned seven properties and had other assets. Certainly, the husband made a far greater initial contribution than did the wife. However, the parties do not agree about the monetary value of the husband’s initial contribution, as they disagree about the value of the properties that the husband owned at the time.
[104] … The only evidence before the Court is the purchase prices. It was submitted that the sale prices of the properties in the years 2002 and 2003 cannot be indicative of the value of the assets as at January 1998.
[105] The difficulty with that submission, however, is that the properties were purchased at various times between 1984 and 1996, and it would not appear that the purchase prices of the properties would be any more indicative of their value in 1998 than their sale prices in 2002 and 2003.
[106] The Husband’s estimates of the values of the real estate at Annexure “A1”are calculated as at 25th June 1999 and appear to offer the best guide to the values of the real estate at the commencement of cohabitation. The estimated values [total] $3,250,000.
( … )
[107] As for contributions during the marriage, the wife contends that she made contributions from her income in full-time employment. She worked in various positions and occupations …
[108] It is the husband’s case that he made a significant ongoing financial contribution through his fees … [His subsequent change in careers during the parties’ relationship] … must be said to have been less than successful.
[109] It is the wife’s case that she made significant non-financial contributions to the relationship, not only in her role as homemaker, but as a professional support person, bookkeeper and assistant in the husband’s employment and business ventures, including management of properties. …
( … )
[121] …the husband’s financial contributions both at the outset and throughout the parties’ relationship have always been greater than those of the wife. …
[122] The wife’s non-financial contribution to the marriage should not be under-estimated. Having heard his evidence and having observed the husband acting for himself in the interim proceedings prior to the final hearing, in which he very sensibly obtained legal representation, I formed the view that the husband would have been a difficult, argumentative and impulsive person with whom to live. …
[123] I assess the parties’ contributions at 80% to the husband and 20% to the wife.”
After considering the wife’s gross salary of $17,746 per annum (para 125); the husband’s gross earnings of about $170,000 per annum (para 126); the husband’s submission that he was older and in poorer health than the wife (the husband being 56 and suffering from depression, the wife being 44); and that the wife obtained qualifications during the relationship (para 127) and that her “income and asset position have improved considerably during the relationship” (para 133) the Court concluded (from para 135):
“… In my view, the s 75(2) factors slightly favour the wife. There is a disparity between the parties’ incomes in favour of the husband and he will receive a substantially greater amount of property than she will.
[136] Against this, the husband’s depression is a factor and there is some strength to his counsel’s submission that there are some question marks over his earning capacity in the future. …
[137] In my view, there should be a 10% adjustment in favour of the wife.
[138] This would lead to a division of property in the ratio of 70% to the husband and 30% to the wife.”