FITZMAURICE & WOOLRIDGE

In the matter of Fitzmaurice & Woolridge, Judge Burchardt of the Family Court of Australia considered a de facto property dispute between the applicant wife and the respondent husband. The central disagreement concerned the length of the de facto relationship, with the court ultimately finding it to have subsisted from 2012 to 2016. The applicant entered the relationship with substantial assets, while the respondent owned his home prior to the commencement of cohabitation. The matrimonial home was held in joint names. A significant issue was the dissipation of the applicant's funds, which the court found occurred, though the precise manner of dissipation could not be determined.

The court was required to determine the just and equitable division of property between the parties, taking into account the disputed length of the relationship, the parties' respective financial positions at the commencement and during the relationship, and the dissipation of the applicant's assets. Specifically, the court had to decide how the parties' existing assets, including the respondent's unencumbered home and the jointly owned matrimonial home subject to a mortgage, should be allocated.

Judge Burchardt reasoned that it was just and equitable for the respondent husband to retain his unencumbered home. Conversely, the applicant wife was to retain the matrimonial home, which was subject to a mortgage. The court's orders detailed the process for the transfer of property interests, the discharge of mortgages, and the potential sale of the matrimonial home if certain conditions were not met. The orders also stipulated the indemnification of each party against liabilities associated with their respective assets and businesses, and provided for the distribution of sale proceeds from the matrimonial home.