BURNS & SHEDDON

In *Burns & Sheddon*, the wife sought a property settlement under Part VIII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in circumstances where the husband failed to comply with trial directions and did not appear at the hearing. The wife made an oral application to proceed on an undefended basis.

The primary legal issues before Berman J were whether it was just and equitable to make a property settlement order in the husband's absence, and if so, what that settlement should be, particularly in light of property acquired before the marriage and the short duration of the marriage. The court also considered the effect of an informal property settlement already reached between the parties.

Berman J reasoned that it was just and equitable to proceed in the husband's absence given his non-compliance with court directions and his notice of the proceedings. The court found that the parties had reached an informal settlement of their property, and applying the principles from *Stanford v Stanford* and considering the short duration of the marriage, it was not just and equitable to alter the parties' existing interests in the property they held.

Consequently, the court ordered that the wife and husband were each entitled to be the sole legal and beneficial owners of all items of property, including money, motor vehicles, insurances, equities, superannuation entitlements, and personal effects, currently in their possession or control, without claim by the other, in full and final settlement of their property claims.