Camilli & Albini

In the matter of *Camilli & Albini*, heard before Johns J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the applicant, Ms Camilli, sought final property orders against the respondent, Mr Albini, who failed to participate in the proceedings. Leave was granted for the applicant to proceed on an undefended basis. The parties were in a de facto relationship for approximately 10 years, during which the applicant made overwhelming direct financial contributions, including the purchase of the former matrimonial home. The asset pool was described as extremely modest, and the applicant sought to retain the majority of the assets, including the former matrimonial home.

The court was required to determine the appropriate property settlement orders in circumstances where one party had failed to engage with the proceedings. Specifically, the court had to consider the division of a modest asset pool, the significant direct financial contributions of the applicant, and the applicant's request to retain the former matrimonial home. The court also considered the need for orders to facilitate the transfer of property, given the respondent's non-participation.

Johns J reasoned that the applicant's direct financial contributions were overwhelming and that an adjustment in her favour was just and equitable. The court noted that the applicant had funded the respondent's immigration process and had primarily financed the acquisition of the former matrimonial home, which was initially registered in joint names at the respondent's suggestion to assist his residency application. The court found that no further adjustment was warranted under s 90SF(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), given the parties' ages and the applicant's receipt of a Centrelink pension. The court also considered it appropriate to make orders under s 106A of the Act to ensure the transfer of the property could be effected without further delay, anticipating difficulties in securing the respondent's cooperation.

The court ordered that the respondent transfer all his right, title, and interest in the former matrimonial home to the applicant within 30 days, with the applicant indemnifying the respondent for all liabilities associated with the property. In the event of the respondent's non-compliance, an officer of the court was empowered to execute any necessary documents. The orders also stipulated that each party would be solely entitled to property in their possession, with specific provisions for bank accounts, superannuation, insurance policies, and liabilities. The applicant's initiating application was dismissed.