CHARLES & CHARLES

In the matter of *Charles & Charles*, Foster J considered a property settlement dispute between a husband and wife. The parties had previously entered into a binding financial agreement which was later set aside by consent. A significant period had elapsed since the parties' separation, during which the husband retained control over the majority of the couple's assets and financial resources. While there was substantial agreement regarding the asset pool to be divided, the court was required to determine issues relating to contributions made by each party both at the time of separation and up to the date of the hearing, and whether legal costs incurred should be added back to the asset pool for adjustment purposes. The wife also sought periodic spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' assets, taking into account their respective contributions, both before and after separation. A key issue was the treatment of legal costs paid by the husband, specifically whether these should be added back to the asset pool for the purpose of equitable distribution. Furthermore, the court had to consider the wife's application for spousal maintenance in light of the property settlement orders to be made.

Foster J reasoned that the husband's retention of post-separation control over the majority of assets necessitated a careful consideration of contributions made by both parties throughout the period since separation. The court applied principles of property adjustment under the *Family Law Act 1975* to achieve a just and equitable outcome. The application for spousal maintenance was dismissed, with the court finding that the property settlement orders would adequately address the wife's financial needs. The court ordered the transfer of specific real estate properties held by a trust to the wife, along with furniture and furnishings, and allocated a base amount from the husband's superannuation fund to the wife. The husband was also ordered to pay a significant sum of money to the wife in instalments. The court declared that all other property had been divided between the parties and dismissed all applications before the court, save for the issue of costs.