Friar and Friar & Anor

The Family Court of Australia considered property settlement and costs in the matter of *Friar & Friar*. The applicant wife, Ms R Friar, sought property adjustment orders against the first respondent husband, Mr C Friar, and also sought declaratory relief against both Mr Friar and the second respondent, Ms W Friar (Mr Friar's sister).

The court was required to determine the extent of the parties' contributions to the relationship and the property pool, and whether any adjustment was warranted under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider the second respondent's claim that the husband should be solely responsible for certain joint loans secured over jointly owned property, and whether the principle of "equity is equality" applied. Finally, the court was asked to determine the appropriate costs orders, particularly in light of the second respondent's unsuccessful claims.

In relation to property settlement, the court found that while the husband made significantly greater direct contributions, including inheritances, the wife was the primary homemaker and parent. Crucially, the court found that the husband's "course of violent conduct" against the wife had made her contributions more arduous and had a significant adverse impact. Despite this, the court assessed the parties' contributions at 60% in favour of the husband and 40% in favour of the wife, with no further adjustment under section 75(2). Regarding the joint loans, the court found no merit in the second respondent's claim for sole responsibility, noting the absence of evidence of an intention for unequal sharing or that it was necessary to do justice.

The court ordered the distribution of funds from a controlled monies account, with specific amounts allocated to the second respondent, applicant wife, and respondent husband. The applicant wife was to abandon her interest in two real properties, and the respondent husband was to indemnify the applicant wife in respect of certain debts. The second respondent's application for costs was dismissed, as there were no circumstances justifying a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event, given her overall lack of success in her claims against the husband. All other extant applications were dismissed.