Connor and Connor

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Dessau considered an application by the wife for a partial property settlement of $1 million for both herself and the husband. The parties, married for 26 years, had accumulated substantial wealth, estimated to be around $25 million. While both had already received over $1 million in partial settlements, the wife sought an additional $1 million for each of them to take advantage of favourable tax implications for her superannuation fund before the end of the financial year. The husband argued against the urgency of the claim, suggesting the wife had sufficient assets to achieve her superannuation goals without a partial settlement.

The central legal issue was whether the circumstances warranted a partial property settlement, notwithstanding the parties' considerable wealth and previous partial distributions. The court was required to consider the principles established in cases such as *Harris v Harris* and *Bearup v Bearup*, which emphasise that orders for partial property settlements should be exercised conservatively and generally confined to compelling circumstances or urgent situations to avoid injustice. The court also had to determine if the wife's desire to maximise tax benefits for her superannuation constituted a compelling circumstance, even in the absence of financial hardship.

Justice Dessau reasoned that while the parties were financially well-off, the wife's objective of capitalising on a time-sensitive tax opportunity presented a compelling circumstance for a partial property settlement. The court found that the husband's argument for a narrow interpretation of "urgency" and "compelling circumstances" was too restrictive, as such situations can arise even in contexts of significant wealth. The judge was satisfied that the remaining property would be adequate to meet the legitimate expectations of both parties, aligning with the conservative approach required by *Harris v Harris*. Consequently, the court ordered a partial property settlement of $1 million each, to be drawn from a specific joint bank account. Additionally, by consent, orders were made for the parties to lease certain properties and manage the proceeds and expenses of those leases until the final hearing.