Denning & Denning

The Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between Mr. Denning (applicant husband) and Ms. Denning (respondent wife), with B Pty Ltd (intervenor) seeking to recover a judgment debt and costs from the husband. The central issue revolved around determining the quantum of the asset pool available for division and satisfying the intervenor's claim, particularly in light of allegations that the husband had diverted funds. The court also addressed issues concerning the husband's superannuation entitlements, the standard of proof for alleged fund diversions, and the wife's reserved application for spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine the just and equitable distribution of property under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering the contributions of each party under section 79(4) and the relevant financial circumstances under section 75(2). Key legal questions included how to treat credit card debts incurred by the husband, the appropriate approach to assessing contributions when the asset pool was limited, and whether to draw inferences from the evidence presented, particularly regarding the husband's alleged diversion of funds. The court also had to consider the intervenor's claim for costs on an indemnity basis and the husband's application for costs against the wife.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles established in cases such as *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* regarding the standard of proof for allegations of fraud or wilful dissipation of assets. The court considered the documentary evidence and expert accounting evidence to ascertain the true value of the asset pool. It also addressed the husband's assertion of minimal superannuation entitlements and the wife's claim for spousal maintenance, ultimately reserving the latter. The court's approach to the credit card debts involved assigning responsibility for specific debts to each party, with the husband bearing the majority.

The court ordered that the monies held in Westpac term deposits be paid out, with 75% to the wife and 25% to the intervenor, to reduce the judgment debt owed by the husband. The wife was also ordered to pay certain previously ordered costs from her share of these funds. The husband was made solely responsible for various credit card debts and monies owed to his mother, while the wife was assigned responsibility for her own debts and liabilities. The husband was ordered to pay the intervenor's costs of the hearing, fixed at $27,000. Otherwise, each party was to retain their personal chattels and be liable for their own incurred debts. The wife's entitlement to future periodic spousal maintenance was reserved.