Halstron & Halstron

This case concerned a property settlement dispute between Ms Halstron (the applicant wife) and Mr Halstron (the respondent husband) before McEvoy J of the Family Court of Australia. The parties disagreed on various aspects of the asset pool, including the treatment of alleged loans, the valuation of certain assets such as shares, and the quantum of liabilities. The wife sought a specific sum from the non-superannuation pool, while the husband proposed that she receive her proportionate share through distributions or in specie transfers. A key point of contention was the commencement date of the parties' de facto relationship, although the court noted this distinction was not ultimately critical to the final determination.

The court was required to determine the just and equitable division of the parties' property interests. This involved resolving disputes regarding the inclusion of a loan to the husband's brother in the asset pool, considering applications to lead further evidence concerning the former matrimonial home and the fall in share values due to COVID-19, and assessing the contributions of each party to the relationship, including financial contributions by the husband and parenting contributions by both parties at different times. The court also had to consider adjustments under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of the duration of the marriage and the wife's period out of the workforce affecting her earning capacity.

McEvoy J reasoned that a final property division of 65% in favour of the husband and 35% in favour of the wife was just and equitable, taking into account all relevant considerations under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court acknowledged the husband's significant initial financial contributions and the parties' differing parenting contributions over time. A small adjustment of 2.5% was made in the wife's favour, primarily due to the duration of the marriage and its likely impact on her earning capacity, as well as other section 75(2)(o) factors that favoured the husband. The court also ordered the wife to receive a proportion of the shares in specie.

The court ordered a property division of 65% to the husband and 35% to the wife. This included specific orders for the payment of sums of money, the transfer of shares in specie, the sale and distribution of US properties, and the division of superannuation entitlements. The husband was to retain certain assets, including the former matrimonial home and the parties' respective trusts, while the wife was to retain other assets and funds. The husband was also ordered to indemnify the wife against various liabilities, including loans to his brother.