Georgiades and Georgiades & Ors

In the matter of *Georgiades and Georgiades & Ors*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered a wife's application for property settlement. The wife sought a declaration that the husband's parents held their interests in the former matrimonial home on trust for the parties, alleging the creation of a constructive trust or equitable estoppel. She also sought to include large cash withdrawals made by the husband in the asset pool and requested a property distribution favouring her. The husband and his parents contested the wife's claims regarding the property and the cash withdrawals.

The court was required to determine whether a constructive trust or equitable estoppel had arisen in relation to the former matrimonial home, and whether the husband's parents held any interest in it on behalf of the parties. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the husband's cash withdrawals should be "added back" to the asset pool, and how the parties' respective contributions and future needs should be weighed in determining a just and equitable property division. The court also had to assess the reliability of financial disclosures made by the husband and his parents.

Berman J found that the wife had failed to establish the necessary elements for either a constructive trust or equitable estoppel, specifically noting the absence of a proven representation by the husband's parents and the lack of detrimental reliance by the wife. Regarding the cash withdrawals, the court found the evidence unreliable and, applying principles from *Stanford v Stanford*, determined it was appropriate to add back the aggregate cash withdrawals to the asset pool due to the potential availability of these funds to the husband and the inadequate disclosure by the husband and his parents. In considering the property division, the court acknowledged the wife's significant homemaker contributions and her role as primary caregiver for the parties' two children, while recognising the husband's financial contributions, supported by his parents, and his likely ongoing financial support from his family.

Ultimately, the court ordered that the wife's application for a declaration of trust over the former matrimonial home be dismissed. In full and final settlement, the husband was ordered to pay the wife $269,717 within sixty days. The husband was restrained from dealing with certain assets pending this payment, and provisions were made for the sale of these assets in default of payment. The husband was to indemnify the wife against any liability to his parents, and each party was to indemnify the other against liabilities associated with retained property. The husband retained specific assets, including his shareholding in G Pty Ltd and his interest in P Street, Suburb C, while the wife retained her interest in J Street, Suburb Y. The final property adjustment was made in favour of the wife at 62.5% to 37.5%.