Chtibi & Chtibi (No. 2)

This case involved an application for property adjustment between Ms A Chtibi (the applicant wife) and Mr B Chtibi (the first respondent husband), with H Pty Limited as the third respondent. The dispute concerned the division of the parties' assets following their separation. The matter came before Foster J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the applicable principles for property adjustment in this matter, considering the contributions of each party and the factors outlined in section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). A key issue was the husband's assertion of a loan arrangement, the evidence for which was not accepted by the court. The court also had to consider the husband's failure to call relevant witnesses and the implications of this failure, as well as the husband's provision of full and frank disclosure.

Foster J applied the principles of property adjustment, noting the wife's role as primary carer and homemaker throughout the marriage, while the husband controlled the family finances. The court found that the husband had not provided full and frank disclosure and did not accept his evidence regarding an asserted loan arrangement. Crucially, the court applied the principles established in *Jones v Dunkel*, drawing inferences adverse to the husband due to his unexplained failure to call his brother and his brother's wife as witnesses, who were directly involved in property dealings asserted by the husband. The court also noted the absence of evidence from another relevant party, Mr V.

The court ordered that the pool of assets be divided 60 per cent in favour of the wife and 40 per cent in favour of the husband. Specifically, the husband was ordered to pay the wife the sum of $499,200 by way of property adjustment within three months of the date of the order.