BISHOP & BISHOP

This case concerned a property settlement dispute between a husband and wife, heard by Tree J in the Family Court of Australia. The primary dispute revolved around the division of the residual proceeds from the sale of the former matrimonial home, which were held in a conveyancer's trust account. The wife also alleged that the husband had failed to disclose certain assets, seeking to have the entirety of the remaining proceeds awarded to her on this basis.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home, applying the four-step process mandated by section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved identifying the parties' legal and equitable interests in the property, considering whether it was just and equitable to make an order altering those interests, assessing the contributions of each party to the marriage and their future needs, and finally, determining what order would be just and equitable in all the circumstances. The court also had to consider the wife's claim of non-disclosure of assets by the husband and the practicalities of awarding the parties' agreed superannuation entitlements to the wife.

In its reasoning, the court found that the former matrimonial home was jointly owned and that it was impracticable for the parties to continue to enjoy it jointly following their separation, thus satisfying the initial threshold for making an order. The court accepted that the husband had made greater financial contributions to the property, while the wife had made greater contributions as a homemaker and parent and possessed a lower earning capacity. Regarding the wife's claim of non-disclosure, the court found that she had failed to persuade it on the balance of probabilities that there were undisclosed assets, noting a substantial body of evidence suggesting otherwise. The court also addressed the agreed division of superannuation, noting practical difficulties with a self-managed superannuation fund due to a de-registered company, but ultimately not being satisfied on the available material to order the company's reinstatement at that stage.

The court ordered that the residual proceeds held by the conveyancer be paid to the parties in the proportion of 80 per cent to the husband and 20 per cent to the wife. Additionally, the husband's entitlement as a judgment creditor was assigned to the wife, and the wife was to transfer her shareholding in a particular company to the husband. The court also made orders for the allocation of the parties' combined superannuation entitlements to the wife, to be effective from a specified date, with provisions for her to roll out her entitlements to a complying fund if she desired. Otherwise, each party was to retain sole entitlement to chattels, bank accounts, and personal property in their possession, and all other extant applications were dismissed.