Gee and Luxford & Anor

In the Family Court of Australia, Rees J considered a property settlement dispute between a wife and her husband, who was also involved in financial ventures with his brother, the second respondent. The central dispute concerned the characterisation and division of assets, particularly funds owed to the husband by his brother, and an application to set aside a transfer of property.

The court was required to determine whether money owing to the husband by the second respondent constituted an asset for the purposes of property settlement. Additionally, the court had to consider an application by the wife to set aside a transfer of the husband's interest in a property to the second respondent under section 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and whether such a transfer was made with the intention of defeating court orders.

Rees J reasoned that the funds owed to the husband by his brother were indeed assets to be included in the property pool. The court assessed the wife's contributions at 60 per cent and, after considering further adjustments under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and the husband's dissipation of funds through gambling, ordered that the wife receive 65 per cent of the net assets. Regarding the property transfer, the court found that it was not established that the husband or the second respondent intended to defeat an order of the court, and therefore dismissed the wife's application under section 106B.

Consequently, the court ordered that the wife be solely entitled to the proceeds of sale of one property, and from the proceeds of sale of another property, the wife was to be paid a specific sum, with the balance to be paid to the second respondent. Subject to these orders, each party was to be solely entitled to any asset in their possession. No order was made for the second respondent to repay the amounts owed to the husband.