| Norbis v Norbis | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Norbis v Norbis |
| Decided | 1986 |
| Citation(s) | 161 CLR 513 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Mason, 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.
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
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.
A sheriff is a government official, with varying duties, existing in some countries with historical ties to England where the office originated. There is an analogous, although independently developed, office in Iceland that is commonly translated to English as sherif.
Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.
Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. Many consider him to be Australia's most prominent jurist.
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.
Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a person accused of serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair.
An asset-protection trust is any form of trust which provides for funds to be held on a discretionary basis. Such trusts are set up in an attempt to avoid or mitigate the effects of taxation, divorce and bankruptcy on the beneficiary. Such trusts are therefore frequently proscribed or limited in their effects by governments and the courts.
Child custody is a legal term regarding guardianship which is used to describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent or guardian and a child in that person's care. Child custody consists of legal custody, which is the right to make decisions about the child, and physical custody, which is the right and duty to house, provide and care for the child. Married parents normally have joint legal and physical custody of their children. Decisions about child custody typically arise in proceedings involving divorce, annulment, separation, adoption or parental death. In most jurisdictions child custody is determined in accordance with the best interests of the child standard.
Australian family law is principally found in the federal Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 as well as in other laws and the common law and laws of equity, which affect the family and the relationship between those people, including when those relationships end. Most family law is practised in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia. Australia recognises marriages entered into overseas as well as divorces obtained overseas if they were effected in accordance with the laws of that country. Australian marriage and "matrimonial causes" are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, such as the Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).
There are four overriding requirements for a patent to be granted under United Kingdom patent law. Firstly, there must have been an invention. That invention must be novel, inventive and susceptible of industrial application.
The Family Law Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. It has 15 parts and is the primary piece of legislation dealing with divorce, parenting arrangements between separated parents (whether married or not), property separation, and financial maintenance involving children or divorced or separated de facto partners: in Australia. It also covers family violence. It came into effect on 5 January 1976, repealing the Matrimonial Causes Act 1961, which had been largely based on fault. On the first day of its enactment, 200 applications for divorce were filed in the Melbourne registry office of the Family Court of Australia, and 80 were filed in Adelaide, while only 32 were filed in Sydney.
Asset freezing is a form of interim or interlocutory injunction which prevents a defendant to an action from dealing with or dissipating its assets so as to frustrate a potential judgment. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions and such orders can be made to have world-wide effect. It is variously construed as part of a court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain breaches of its process.
White v White is an English family law decision by the House of Lords, and a landmark case in redistribution of finances as well as property on divorce. This case involved a couple with assets exceeding £4.5m which was deemed more than either needs for their reasonable requirements. It was held that the absence of financial need did not mean departing from a more generous settlement for an applicant in big money cases. This, therefore, enables the courts to make settlements reflecting the wealth of the parties, and not just their needs and requirements.
Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application is a judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judgment was passed down on 27 October 2006 and relates to two different appeals from decisions of the High Court. The first case involved GB 2171877 granted to Aerotel Ltd and their infringement action against Telco Holdings Ltd and others. The second case concerned GB application 2388937 filed by Neal Macrossan but refused by the UK Patent Office.
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was a case before the High Court of Australia determining that the HREOC could not validly exercise judicial power. The High Court maintained a firm position against attempts to confer judicial powers upon non-judicial bodies.
Northern Territory v Mengel, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 19 April 1995. The decision dealt with the conceptual framework of tort law and held that liability under tort depended on the plaintiff establishing the defendant was either negligent or intended to cause harm to the plaintiff. It overruled the decision in Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith.
Gronow v Gronow, was a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Henderson v Defence Housing Authority, also known as the Residential Tenancies case, is a landmark Australian High Court decision on intergovernmental immunity and states' rights under the Australian Constitution.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law.
Muschinski v Dodds, was a significant Australian court case, decided by the High Court of Australia on 6 December 1985. The case was part of a trend of High Court decisions to impose a constructive trust where it would be unconscionable for a legal owner of property to deny the beneficial interests of another. In this case the Court held it would be unconscionable for Mr Dodds to retain a half share of the property without first accounting for the purchase price paid by Ms Muschinski.
Kennon v Spry is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia, important in the fields of family law and trust law.