{"id":393,"date":"2010-09-28T02:12:55","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T02:12:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wp3.thomsonreuters.net.au\/journals\/?p=393"},"modified":"2010-09-28T02:12:55","modified_gmt":"2010-09-28T02:12:55","slug":"kennon-v-spry-an-extended-reach-for-s-79","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2010\/09\/28\/kennon-v-spry-an-extended-reach-for-s-79\/","title":{"rendered":"Kennon v Spry: An extended reach for s 79?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><em>By Peter Hannan*<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In this article the author considers the width of the concept of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153property\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for the purposes of s 79 of the <em>Family Law Act 1975<\/em> (Cth) in light of the 2008 decision of the High Court in <em>Kennon v Spry<\/em>, and also the subsequent litigation between the parties. While the case of <em>Kennon v Spry<\/em> addressed wider principles concerning property, trusts and equity, it essentially turned on the construction of s 79 of the <em>Family Law Act<\/em>, particularly the scope of the phrase \u00e2\u20ac\u0153property of the parties to the marriage or either of them\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. And the majority judgments, in the author\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s view, must be regarded as an extension of the law and reach of s 79.<\/p>\n<p>The full article can be accessed here: &#8220;Kennon v Spry: An extended reach for s 79?&#8221; <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2010\/09\/Article-Hannan-2010-1-Fam-L-Rev-18.pdf\">(2010) 1 Fam L Rev 18<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>* Peter Hannan, Barrister, John Toohey Chambers, Perth.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Peter Hannan. In this article the author considers the width of the concept of &#8220;property&#8221; for the purposes of s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in light of the 2008 decision of the High Court in Kennon v Spry, and also the subsequent litigation between the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[118,119,121,122,123,124,125],"class_list":["post-393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-family-law-review","tag-equity","tag-fam-l-rev","tag-kennon-v-spry","tag-marriage","tag-property","tag-s-79-family-law-act-1975","tag-trusts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}