Archer and Archer (No 3)

In *Archer and Archer (No. 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered final property orders in a matter where the husband, residing in Lebanon, did not appear. The wife sought orders pursuant to s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) for a just and equitable division of property. The proceedings had previously involved interim applications concerning financial matters and the sale of the former matrimonial home in Australia, the proceeds of which had been paid to the wife.

The court was required to determine the appropriate final property settlement, considering the parties' respective assets, including real property in Australia and Lebanon, personal possessions, and superannuation entitlements. A key issue was the wife's concession not to pursue the husband's overseas assets, seeking finality in the proceedings. The court also had to consider an application for costs against the husband.

Justice Young reasoned that a just and equitable division involved each party retaining the property currently registered in their name or in their possession. This included the wife retaining the proceeds from the sale of the Australian property, her personal effects, and her superannuation. The husband would retain his sole ownership of properties in Lebanon, with the court noting that the children had been added to the titles of certain Lebanese properties with the husband's knowledge and agreement. The court applied s 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to the costs application, considering the parties' financial circumstances, conduct, and cooperation in the litigation.

The court ordered that each party retain sole ownership of all real property and personal possessions registered in their name or in their possession. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $4,200 for costs within thirty days. The wife's initiating application and all subsequent applications were dismissed, and the proceedings were removed from the court's docket. Leave was granted to file an affidavit of service, and documents evidencing the transfer of Lebanese properties to the children were marked as an exhibit. The court also directed that the judgment and orders be provided to the husband and his Lebanese solicitors.