Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T00:39:00.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the Chancellor's Foot — Matrimonial Property Law in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

John H. Wade
John H. Wade*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comments
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , September 1984 , pp. 76 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1984) FLC 95-507 (10 April 1984).

2 Ibid 79, 122; 79, 123.

3 Ibid 79, 120.

4 Eg ibid 79, 121.

5 Eg Aroney v Aroney (1979) FLC 90-709; W v W (1980) FLC 90-827; Matthews v Matthews (1980) FLC 90-887; Albany v Albany (1980) FLC 90-905; Woolley v Woolley (No 2) (1981) FLC 91-011 (wife awarded one-third of the value of husband's shares in architectural company); Anast v Anastopoulos (1982) FLC 91-201 (enterprising husband awarded 2/3 of $323,000; wife's years of manual work worth 1/3); Mahon v Mahon (1982) FLC 91-242 (homemaker husband awarded 1/3 of the assets accumulated by his entrepreneurial wife); Dupont v Dupont (No 3) (1981) FLC 91-103 (wife received $340,000 of the combined assets of$864,500; that is,just less than 40%); Kelly v Kelly (No 2) (1981) FLC 91-108 (homemaker wife received $350,000 of the total property and financial resources of the husband valued at $1,481,000).

6 79, Ill; 79, 114 per Gibbs CJ, citing Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513,519; 79, 125per Wilson J, citing Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621, 627; 79, 118 per Mason J, citing inter alia House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, 504-505.

7 (1984) FLC 95-507; 79, 11I.

8 Eg R H Mnookin & L Kornhauser, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce” (1979) 88 Yale LJ 950; W B Baker, J Eekelaar, C Gibson & S Raikes, The Matrimonial Jurisdiction of Registrars SSRC 1977; Scottish Law Commisson, Family Law: Report on Aliment and Financial Provision No 67, 1981, esp para 3-37. Even a “liberated” judicial discretion may choose to follow rules of thumb in contested cases; egPage v Page (1981) 11 Fam L 149; Preston v Preston [1981] 3 WLR 619.

9 Scottish Law Commission. Family Law: Report on Aliment and Financial Provision (1981) par 3-58.

10 Ibid para 3-37.

11 (1984) FLC 95-507; 79. 120.

12 Ibid 79, 129.

13 Ibid 79, 132.

14 Dupont v Dupont (No 3) (1981) FLC 91-103, 76, 765; see broader statements in Rolfe v Rolfe (1979) FLC 90-629, 78,273; Wardman v Hudson (1978) FLC 90-466, 77,385; Crawford v Crawford (1979) FLC 90-647, 78,410, 78,411; Pickard v Pickard (1981) FLC 91-034, 76,314: 76,315.

15 Zdravkovic v Zdravkovic (1982) FLC 91-220, 77, 207; Potthoff v Potthoff (1978) FLC 90-475, 77, 446;Aroney v Aroney (1979) FLC 90-709, 78, 789; Dupont v Dupont (No 3) (1981) FLC 91-103, 76,765; Pickard v Pickard (1981) FLC 91-034, 76,314.

16 NSW Women's Advisory Council, Occupation Housewife (1980) l.

17 (1984) FLC 95-507; 79, 120.

18 M A Glendon, The New Family and the New Property (1981) 63-64.

19 For references to some of the cases and literature on balancing the losses and gains of earning power, see MA Glendon, The New Family and the New Property (1981); ES Beninger & J W Smith, “Career Opportunity Cost: A Factor in Spousal Support Determination” (1982) 16 Family LQ 201; G H Raggis, “Professional Goodwill and Professional Licences as Property Subject to Distribution upon Dissolution of Marriage”, (1982) 16 Family LQ 147.

20 (1984) FLC 95-507; 79, 126.

21 R H Mnookin, “Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial functions in the Face of Indeterminacy” (1975) 39 Law & Contemporary Problems 226, 260-261.

22 The volumes of reported litigation in other jurisdictions make it clear that legislative reform provides no panacea for defining the boundaries of judicial discretion over matrimonial property. Eg in Canada, A McClean, “Matrimonial Property – Canadian Common Law Style” (1981) U of Toronto LJ 363; in USA, SJ Brake, “Equitable Distribtion vs. Fixed Rules: Marital Property Reform and the Uniform Marital Property Act” (1982) 23 Boston College LR 761; in Australia, I McCall, 'Dissolving the Economic Partnership of Marriage' (1982) 14 Uni of West Aust LR 365; in Scotland, Scottish Law Commission, Family Law: Report on Aliment and Financial Provision No 67, 1981; in England, R Deech, “Financial Relief: The Retreat from Precedent and Principle” (1982) 98 LQR 621; in New Zealand, A H Angelo and W R Atkin, “A Conceptual and Structural Overview of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976” (1977) 7 NZUL Rev 237; and generally MA Glendon, New Family and New Property (1981).

23 (1978) FLC 90-466; 77, 384 (Italics added).

24 (1978) FLC 90-475; 77, 446 (Italics added).