EAKINS & HIGGINS

The Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between Ms Eakins (the wife) and Mr Higgins (the husband). The core of the disagreement revolved around the division of assets, particularly those acquired by the husband post-separation from his income and benefits, while the wife remained the primary carer for the parties' three children. The husband had recently been made redundant but was confident of re-employment, and the wife had re-partnered.

The court was required to determine the contribution-based entitlement of the parties to all their assets, including those acquired after separation. It also needed to consider the impact of various factors, including the husband's historically high income-earning capacity and the wife's ongoing role as primary caregiver, on the ultimate division of the property pool. The court also addressed the husband's child support obligations and the wife's former application for lump sum child maintenance, which had been abandoned.

In its reasoning, the court applied principles relating to the division of matrimonial property, including consideration of contributions made by each party and future needs under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court acknowledged the husband's significant post-separation income and benefits, which contributed substantially to the asset pool. Balancing these factors with the wife's role as primary carer and the husband's earning capacity, the court ordered that the wife receive 62 per cent of the net asset pool, with the husband to receive the remaining 38 per cent.

The court made detailed orders regarding the payment of a lump sum to the wife, the release of her guarantee for a bank loan, and the potential sale of a property if the husband failed to comply with the payment order. These orders included specific provisions for the sale process, the distribution of proceeds, and the discharge of the wife's guarantee in relation to another property. The court also discharged interim orders and noted the husband's undertakings regarding school fees and child support payments.