Fletcher & Maloney

In *Fletcher & Maloney*, Strickland J of the Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between the parties. The case involved complex issues surrounding the treatment of assets held within a trust and a corporate beneficiary, as well as the assessment of contributions and the application of section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether a trust and its corporate beneficiary should be treated as the husband's "alter ego" or as a "financial resource," the appropriate method for determining the asset pool, the inclusion of capital gains tax liabilities, the assessment of the parties' contributions to their respective businesses and financial resources, and the applicability of section 75(2) factors, particularly concerning potential double-counting of contributions. The court also had to determine whether the wife's reduced workload due to childcare responsibilities warranted an adjustment under section 75(2).

Strickland J determined that the trust and its corporate beneficiary were financial resources of the husband, rather than his alter ego, meaning their value could not be directly added to the divisible asset pool but could be considered in making adjustments. The court found no basis for including anticipated capital gains tax liabilities in the asset pool. Contributions to the parties' businesses were assessed as equal. Regarding section 75(2), the court acknowledged the potential for its application in property settlement proceedings, citing relevant Full Court decisions, but cautioned against double-counting contributions already considered under section 79(4). The wife's reduced workload was not found to have reduced her earning capacity, thus not justifying an adjustment on that ground. However, an adjustment of $400,000 was made in favour of the wife under section 75(2)(b) in consideration of financial resources.

The court made detailed orders dividing the parties' assets and liabilities, including the allocation of professional practices, various properties, bank accounts, superannuation entitlements, and loan accounts. Notably, the wife was ordered to pay the husband $713,903.00, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife $34,537.00, with provisions for indemnities regarding mortgages and other liabilities associated with specific properties.