Forster and Forster (No. 7)

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of Forster & Forster (No. 7), heard a property dispute between Ms. Forster (the applicant wife) and Mr. Forster (the respondent husband). The dispute had a protracted and complex history, involving numerous hearings and significant expenditure of the parties' limited resources. The case concerned the division of the parties' property following their separation in May 2007, after an 18-year marriage.

The court was required to determine the appropriate orders for the division of property, specifically addressing the proceeds of the former matrimonial home held in trust, a motor vehicle registered in the wife's name, and the husband's obligation to indemnify the wife for outstanding litigation in the United States. A key legal issue was how to achieve a just and equitable outcome under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of the husband's limited participation in the final hearing and his history of non-disclosure. The court also considered the principles of identifying legal and equitable interests in property and the discretionary power to alter those interests, as outlined in *Stanford v Stanford* [2012] HCA 52.

The court reasoned that simply returning the trust funds to the parties in proportion to their initial ownership of the former matrimonial home would not be just and equitable, especially given the wife's financial position and the husband's lack of articulation regarding his interests. The court noted the husband's history of persistent litigation, including unsuccessful appeals and applications, and his failure to make full and frank financial disclosure, which justified a robust approach. The court found that the wife's financial position remained precarious, with significant debts and substantial outstanding legal costs exacerbated by the husband's actions. The husband, a retired US government agency employee, was found to have a secure government pension.

The court ordered that the wife receive the proceeds held in trust in her name, retain the motor vehicle in her name, and be indemnified by the husband for all outstanding litigation in the United States. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs fixed at $48,050, with $42,200 of this amount satisfied by the wife receiving the trust proceeds. All outstanding proceedings were dismissed, and previously made costs orders were deemed satisfied by the primary costs order.