Bardsen & Rigg

In this matter before Riethmuller J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Mr Bardsen (the applicant husband) and Ms Rigg (the respondent wife) presented a dispute concerning property settlement following their separation. The core of their disagreement involved the assessment of contributions made by each party to the relationship, the treatment of the husband's loan account with his professional firm, the allocation of legal fees incurred post-separation, and considerations of their future needs.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included how to value and treat the husband's substantial loan account with his partnership, which he could not access until retirement. The court also had to consider the impact of legal fees paid by both parties after separation, the wife's FEE-HELP liability, and various other assets and liabilities. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the parties' respective contributions to the relationship, both financially and non-financially, and then consider relevant factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to determine an equitable property settlement.

Riethmuller J reasoned that the husband's loan account, despite its restricted access, constituted a significant asset of the husband, analogous to a partnership interest, and was therefore to be included in the property pool. The court determined that a guarantee of a debt facility was a contingent liability and not a debt to be deducted from the asset pool. Regarding post-separation expenditure, the court found it inappropriate to adjust the asset pool for funds accumulated or debts incurred by the husband, viewing these as consequences of his financial management since separation. In assessing contributions, the court found them to be largely equal, with a slight adjustment in favour of the husband (53/47) due to his initial property contributions and a gift of shares. When considering section 75(2) factors, the court noted the age difference between the parties and the significant disparity in their incomes, with the husband earning substantially more than the wife.

The court ordered that within seven days, the parties were to jointly draw up a form of orders reflecting the published reasons and submit them to the court. In the event of disagreement, each party was to provide a proposed set of draft orders to the court and the other party within fourteen days.