Yeng & Sun [2025] FedCFamC1A 106 (18 June 2025) — Case Note

Key point

The Full Court allowed an appeal in a property matter, holding that the primary judge erred by treating very substantial parental contributions as effectively neutral, and by assuming (without evidence) that those contributions were intended to benefit both spouses.

I'm unable to add or display photos directly. However, I can suggest relevant topics or ideas for images that you might want to include. If you specify the context or subject of your content, I can help you with ideas for images to complement it.

Background

The parties were married for about 20 years and had two teenage children. They lived overseas, along with the husband’s mother, who became a second respondent due to her financial involvement. The asset pool was around $18 million. At first instance, the trial judge made orders dividing the pool equally, leaving each party with roughly $8.93 million.

A central feature of the case was that the husband’s parents had contributed over $5 million during the relationship, including funding and asset support.

Decision on appeal

The Full Court (McClelland DCJ, Gill & Brasch JJ) found error in the contributions assessment. In particular:

• The primary judge was not entitled to rely on “common human experience” to infer that the husband’s mother intended her contributions to benefit both the husband and the wife. Intent had to be determined from evidence, not assumption.

• Given the scale of the parents’ financial contributions, an equal contributions finding was not open on the evidence. The assessment failed to properly weigh those contributions in the overall s 79 / s 90SM exercise.

• The Court reaffirmed the need for a holistic approach to contributions and adjustments, rather than flattening major third-party contributions into the background.

The appeal was allowed and the property orders were set aside for re-determination.

Why it matters

This case is a sharp reminder that:

1. Large parental contributions can materially shift the contributions balance, especially where they are well-documented and clearly sourced.

2. Courts can’t substitute assumption for evidence about whether a gift or support was meant for one spouse or both. If intention matters, prove it.

3. Parties relying on family money should document the nature of the contribution (gift, loan, for whom, and why) early, because it will be dissected later.