DIXON & ELLIOT

In the matter of *Dixon & Elliot*, McEvoy J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the property interests of a former husband and wife. The proceedings, which had commenced in 1984 but remained unresolved, involved the husband's assertion that a $100,000 payment made to the wife upon separation constituted a final property settlement, an assertion the wife denied. The court also had to consider the husband's claim of a subsequent agreement in 2013, neither of which had been formally binding or approved by the Court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the $100,000 payment or the alleged 2013 agreement represented a binding property settlement, and if not, how the parties' property interests should be adjusted. Additionally, the court was required to determine the appropriate date for valuing the asset pool and to consider the husband's claim of adverse possession over the wife's half share of a jointly owned property, which he had occupied exclusively since 1992. The court also had to assess whether it was just and equitable to make an order adjusting the parties' property interests under section 79 of the relevant Act.

McEvoy J reasoned that neither the 1984 payment nor the alleged 2013 agreement were binding settlements, and that there was no justification to depart from the general principle that property should be valued at the time of trial. The court found that the husband had acquired the wife's half share of the property by adverse possession from 2007, although he would not have been in a position to seek formal vesting of the land until 2022. Despite this, the court held that the property interests were nonetheless alterable under section 79. The court assessed the parties' contributions during the marriage as equal but acknowledged the husband's greater post-separation contributions. However, considering the section 75(2) factors favoured the wife, the court determined it was just and equitable to make an adjustment in her favour. Adhering to the wife's case as presented at trial, the court ordered an adjustment of 28.5% of the total asset pool in her favour. The parties were directed to confer and submit proposals for the further conduct of the proceeding, including orders to give effect to the reasons and all consequential matters, with a mention fixed for 16 December 2020.