Cato and Cato (No. 2)

The Family Court of Australia heard proceedings between Ms Cato (the wife) and Mr Cato (the husband) concerning property settlement. The wife, who was self-represented, alleged that the husband had failed to account for certain funds and sought a greater share of the asset pool. The parties agreed on the transfer of the former matrimonial home and the wife's interests in a company and a trust to the husband, with the husband indemnifying the wife against associated liabilities. The central dispute revolved around the valuation of the net asset pool and the appropriate adjustment of contributions and future needs.

The court was required to determine the value of the net asset pool, considering the wife's claims regarding unaccounted funds and the husband's contention regarding the valuation of his interests in family companies. Further issues included assessing the parties' respective contributions to the marriage, both financially and non-financially, and considering factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), such as the husband's significant earning capacity and the wife's current financial situation and past role as primary homemaker and caregiver. The court also had to decide whether to grant the husband's application for the wife to take a portion of her entitlement in superannuation.

The court found no principled basis for notionally adding back funds to the property pool as argued by the wife. It assessed the parties' contributions, finding that the husband's contributions favoured him at 56 per cent compared to the wife's 44 per cent. Applying section 75(2) of the Act, the court determined that a 14 per cent adjustment in favour of the wife was appropriate, taking into account the husband's superior earning capacity and the wife's circumstances. The husband's application for the wife to receive part of her entitlement in superannuation was refused.

The final orders stipulated that the husband was to pay the wife $1,001,850.00 within three months. This payment was to be made contemporaneously with the discharge of the mortgage on the former matrimonial home and the wife's transfer of her interest in the home, company, and trust to the husband. The husband was to indemnify the wife against various liabilities related to these assets. The husband was also ordered to assign his interest in a specific bank account to the wife. Otherwise, each party was to retain assets in their sole names. Upon compliance with the payment order, the existing spousal maintenance order was to be discharged. The court also made provision for a registrar to sign documents on behalf of a defaulting party and dismissed all outstanding applications, subject to any application for costs.