FONTANA & FONTANA

The Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement and parenting dispute between Mr. Fontana (Applicant) and Ms. Fontana (Respondent). The parties, both financial professionals who operated a family accounting business during their 15-year marriage, had one child. The proceedings involved complex issues regarding the husband's financial disclosure, outstanding tax liabilities, and the classification of certain funds as either an asset or a financial resource. The husband's significant ill health, including kidney failure and receipt of insurance payouts, was a key factor in the property settlement considerations. Additionally, the wife sought to vary previous consent orders concerning parenting arrangements, specifically to reduce the husband's time with their son, and an issue arose regarding the child commencing boarding school.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. In relation to property settlement, these included how to categorise funds received by the husband from insurance payouts and income protection, whether these constituted assets or financial resources. The court also had to consider post-separation contributions made by both parties to non-superannuation and superannuation assets, and whether any adjustments were warranted for contributions or for factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of the husband's ill health. Regarding parenting, the court needed to assess the wife's application to vary existing consent orders to reduce the husband's time with the child, and to determine the arrangements for the child's commencement at boarding school, taking into account a report on the child's wishes.

Collier J applied established principles of family law to resolve the disputes. In addressing the property settlement, the court considered the husband's ill health as a significant factor under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), impacting future needs. The court also had to carefully categorise the husband's insurance payouts and income protection payments, distinguishing between assets and financial resources. The court examined post-separation contributions to superannuation and other assets, applying principles from cases such as *Aleksovski & Aleksovski* and *Pierce & Pierce* to determine appropriate adjustments. For parenting, the court discharged previous orders and made new orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with the child to live with the wife. The court also made detailed provisions for the child's time with the husband, including arrangements for boarding school and school holidays, and ordered the wife to pay the husband a sum of $289,734 and to discharge mortgages over the former matrimonial home and an investment property, with provisions for sale if payment was not made.