In a recent case, the High Court was asked to resolve a relationship property dispute more than 20 years after a couple had separated.

The couple had married in 1979 and subsequently had two children. However, in 1993 they decided to separate.

The family had a family home and several rental properties, financed by joint mortgages. Following separation, the wife remained living in the family home and raised the children. She also continued to manage and maintain the rental properties.

When it finally came time for the Court to assess how relationship property should be divided, the Court took into account the wife’s significant contributions to the family after separation.

As a result, the wife was entitled to $151,000 compensation from the relationship property asset pool for her efforts following the separation in 1993.

This award was said by the Family Court to be justified because:

• The wife took on sole responsibility of children aged ten and four at the time of separation, while the husband had a very limited role in their lives.
• The husband did not pay any child support for the first two years following separation. Following this he had paid only a minimum level of child support.
• The wife took on the role of managing the rental properties without support.
• The wife had spent her own money to avoid mortgagee action under the couple’s joint mortgage, and had also invested separate property into repairs and maintenance on the rental properties, when rental income would not cover necessary up-keep.

The Family Court award was upheld after both the husband and the wife sought a greater share of the relationship property. The High Court declined to interfere with the original decision because the Family Court had considered all relevant factors before making an award (including the benefit the wife obtained in living in the family home rent free).

The High Court commented that its job was not an “arithmetical exercise”. Some contributions were easily calculated in financial terms, such as the value of separate property invested into rental properties. Other contributions, including prolonged periods of sole childcare, were not easy to place a monetary value on.

The practical difficulties of making a decision so long after separation were also noted in the judgment, as it was “…very difficult for the parties to obtain all the relevant evidence, for example copies of bank statements…”

The particular significance of this case is that the $151,000 compensation related to life after separation. This illustrates the importance of resolving relationship property matters sooner, rather than later.