Deng & Galinski

This matter concerned an application for alteration of property interests between Ms Deng (the Applicant wife) and Mr Galinski (the Respondent husband), with an intervention by Marsdens Law Group concerning legal fees. The proceedings were before Chief Judge Alstergren.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' property interests pursuant to section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering the contributions of each party and their future needs, and to address the intervener's claim for outstanding legal fees. A key issue was whether to proceed on an undefended basis due to the wife's non-attendance at previous hearings.

The court applied the four-step process for property division, involving identification of net assets, assessment of financial and non-financial contributions, consideration of section 75(2) factors, and a holistic assessment of whether the proposed orders were just and equitable. Despite the wife's lack of participation since March 2020, the court found that dismissing her application for want of prosecution would not be just and equitable. The court noted the wife's limited financial resources and employment skills, and the husband's sole responsibility for the child's expenses. Ultimately, the court determined a 10% / 90% division of the net asset pool of $902,000 in favour of the husband was just and equitable, reflecting the parties' respective contributions and future needs.

The court ordered an alteration of property interests, requiring the Respondent to pay the Applicant $90,200 within sixty days, with $70,200 to the Applicant directly and $20,000 to the Intervener for the Applicant's legal fees. The Respondent was declared to have sole title to the former matrimonial home and all other real and personal property in his possession, while the Applicant was declared to have sole title to all other real and personal property in her possession. Provisions were made for the sale of the former matrimonial home if the Respondent failed to comply with the payment order, with specific disbursement priorities. The Registrar was appointed to execute necessary documents if either party failed to do so, and all other extant applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.