Kane and the weakening of the “special skills” argument
Loretta Care writing in Mondaq discusses the decision in Kane ([2013] FamCAFC 205) where a party argued that his special contribution applied to an initial $1m+ investment, which increased it to a $3m+ value in 2 years entitled him to an unequal share of it upon division of the marital asset pool. On appeal the Full Court stated in their decision that excessive weight had been placed on his contribution and that the Family Law Act does not require, and the authorities do not mandate, any such doctrine (of special contribution).
A similar appeal decision to be handed down soon (Smith & Fields [2012] FamCA 510) make make the position even clearer.
Back to News
In The Press
John R Quinn News
