AK & AK

The Family Court of Australia considered a property dispute between a wife and husband, both Australian citizens originally from Russia. The wife sought property orders, while the husband contended that Russian divorce proceedings had already finalised all legal matters. A key point of contention was the date of separation, with the wife asserting April 2001 and the husband claiming September 1999. The wife, who had limited English proficiency and health issues, relied on Centrelink payments, while the husband was employed overseas.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the property dispute, particularly in light of the Russian divorce. This involved considering whether leave to proceed under section 44(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* was necessary, given the timing of the wife's application relative to the Russian divorce. The court also had to assess the value of the parties' property pool, which included real estate in Russia and Australia, savings, and superannuation, and to determine the appropriate division of these assets. Finally, the court needed to consider the impact of the parties' contributions and future financial circumstances, including the needs of their son with autism, in making its orders.

Justice Faulks found that the court possessed jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the parties were Australian citizens and the orders sought were enforceable in Australia. He determined that leave under section 44(3) was not required, following the reasoning in *Kemeny v. Kemeny*, and even if it were, grounds for granting leave would exist due to the wife's lack of understanding of the Russian proceedings and the potential hardship she would suffer. The court then proceeded to assess the property pool, valuing the assets based on the evidence presented, including the husband's admissions regarding the Russian flat and the sale of the Russian house. The court adopted the approach that property is generally valued as at the date of the hearing, and that post-separation contributions, particularly in relation to the parties' son, would be considered.

The court ultimately made orders for the division of the parties' property. The husband was ordered to pay the wife a sum of $170,000, representing her entitlement to the property pool. This amount was to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the parties' home in F, with the husband having a period of time to sell the property and pay the wife her share. The court also made orders regarding the children, including that the husband continue to pay child support for their son N and that the wife have sole use and occupation of the F home until N turns 18, or until the property is sold, whichever occurs first.