never mind the law feel the politics - Family Court of Australia

2862. The case of Figgins is significant in that it picked up on and referred toEnglish decision making. In their joint judgment, Nicholson CJ andBuckley J referred to the decision of White, noting that the judgment was aturning point in English jurisprudence on the issue of future needs andequality. They found that the period during which the husband learnt thebusiness was equivalent to a situation where a partner is supported toachieve a professional qualification. Because of this, they asserted, “[i]tcould scarcely be argued that because the rewards of his/her professioncame later, the first spouse’s contribution should be reduced becausehis/her earnings were not contemporaneous with the contributions of thespouse. The circumstances of the relationship as a whole must beconsidered in a more comprehensive way.” 7463. Dealing with the issue of special contributions, the Chief Justice andBuckley J expressed concern that the doctrine had become prevalent “inthe absence of specific legislative direction”, especially given thesubjective nature of such assessments. 75They continued that it was“invidious for a judge to in effect give ‘marks’ to a wife or husband during amarriage.” 76This view has found favour with some commentators. Forexample, Parkinson wrote:“People in intimate relationships confer benefits on one another in allsorts of different ways, not merely in contributing to running thehousehold but also in doing all sorts of other things for one another. Itwould be abhorrent if the law of property division required peopleretrospectively to count scores in such matters.” 7764. At this point, their Honours suggested a re-examination of the concept ofspecial contributions, especially in light of the House of Lords decision in74 Figgins per Nicholson CJ and Buckley J at par 5075 Figgins per Nicholson CJ and Buckley J at par 5776 Figgins per Nicholson CJ and Buckley J at par 57