Jump to content

Norbis v Norbis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norbis v Norbis
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case name Norbis v Norbis [1]
Decided1986
Citation161 CLR 513
Court membership
Judges sittingMason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ
Case opinions
appeal allowed
Mason & Deane JJ
Wilson & Dawson JJ
Brennan J

Norbis v Norbis is a decision of the High Court of Australia.[1]

The case is important to Family Law; for its holdings concerning the correct approach when assessing parties' contributions, during a division of assets.

It is the 30th most cited case of the High Court.[2][3]

Facts

[edit]
Pictured: the Family Court building in Hobart

The parties to the appeal were two people seeking divorce after a 30 year marriage. Three years after the divorce was granted, orders were made by the Family Court altering the property interests of the parties.[Note 1] The overall effect of the trial judge's order was to grant the husband 60%. This figure was reached after dividing five of the couple's six major assets in favour of the husband, and one in favour of the wife.[4]

The orders were varied upon appeal to the Full Family Court, who instead adopted a global approach to asset division. This choice of method effectively reduced the husband's entitlement to 57%.[5][6]

The husband then obtained special leave before the High Court

Judgement

[edit]

The High Court was asked to decide whether a 'global' or 'asset by asset' calculation is the correct approach when assessing contributions to a relationship.[7]

The Court decided to preference neither alternative. It held that the legislation did not require a certain method; and that the most appropriate method would depend on the facts. Either approach might be wholly or partially adopted depending on the circumstances.

It noted that an assessment of a homemaker's contribution would usually be done by reference to the whole of their partner's property. This would convenience a global approach being adopted to asset division in most cases.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ These orders were made under s79(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "BarNet Jade - Find recent Australian legal decisions, judgments, case summaries for legal professionals (Judgments And Decisions Enhanced)". jade.io. Retrieved 25 April 2021.
  2. ^ "Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas)". Retrieved 1 June 2021.
  3. ^ Note: data is as of September 2020
  4. ^ Wilson & Dawson JJ, at [3]
  5. ^ Wilson & Dawson JJ, at [4]
  6. ^ Gray, Kevin (1986). "matrimonial property — new developments" (PDF). Australian Law Reform Commission - Reform Journal. 51: 125 – via Austlii.
  7. ^ "Property Case Studies | Armstrong Legal | Family Lawyers". Armstrong Legal. Retrieved 1 June 2021.