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

46“The husband in this case came across an opportunity to exploit agoldmine through his employment. He pursued the endeavour, it wassuccessful and in a short period about $35m was generated. Thereafterhe engaged in various business activities, some of which weresuccessful, some of where were not.” 12799. Despite “scouring” the case, the author wrote that nothing was said of whatwas “special” about the husband’s efforts or talents, commenting that thecourt did not really assess contributions, but merely assumed that“massive wealth creation demands a special skill, though to fit with thelegislation it increasingly uses the term ‘contribution’”. In my view, such athreadbare analysis of the facts and contentious opinion warrants caution.Any “scouring” of the voluminous affidavit evidence, the transcript of theoral evidence and submissions in court (all spanning nearly 2 weeks)together with a careful reading of the long detailed judgment of the trialJudge would correct the bald assertions upon which the commentatorrelies.100. There is an additional matter of importance attached to thehomemaker/parent role that was expressed by Thorpe LJ in Lambert 128 .There, dealing with a long marriage, his Lordship said its relevance:“is not just the duration of 23 years but the fact that they span the mostproductive period of the wife’s life from 22-45. Not only are those years ofchild bearing and rearing but those are the years in which an adultdevelops talents and expends the force of energy in the chosen work.The wife had a modest business which she gave up. What sort ofindependent career she sacrificed is a matter of speculation.”That point appears to me to be well made, and whilst the court is notdealing with a compensatory jurisdiction, such issues fall comfortablywithin the prospective adjustments pursuant to s 75(2)(k) of the Act.127 L Young “A Special Rule for ‘special skill’: is it really common sense?” (2001) 7 CFL 189 at193128 Lambert at part 56