By -

Snapshot

  • The concept of special skills no longer has a place in accepted law.
  • The contribution of a homemaker parent is no less valuable than that of a primary breadwinner.
  • The role of a homemaker does not automatically cease when the children of the relationship become adults.

In Fields & Smith [2015] FamCAFC 57, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia has put paid to the notion that one party to a marriage can be possessed of special skills such that their contribution to the matrimonial assets should be seen as more important or valuable than the contribution of the other party.

The concept of special skills has often been argued by a primary breadwinner in ‘big money’ cases where that party has used their skills to amass significant assets. Typically, this is in the context of the other party assuming the role of the primary homemaker. The court has confirmed that the contribution of one party in such a relationship is no less valuable than the other.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more