HANSON & HANSON (No.2)

This matter concerned an application for property settlement under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) before Judge Scarlett. The dispute involved the division of assets between the applicant wife and the respondent husband. The proceedings were conducted in the absence of the respondent, who failed to attend court. The court also considered an application for costs, which had been reserved on previous occasions.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine a just and equitable distribution of the parties' property interests. This involved considering whether certain amounts, representing a premature distribution to the respondent, should be added back into the asset pool for division. The applicant wife was seeking orders for an amount less than she might otherwise have been entitled to, a factor the court would have regard to in its determination.

In reaching its decision, the court made orders for the alteration of property interests. The wife was to receive all net proceeds from the sale of the former matrimonial home, along with accrued interest. She was also to retain sole ownership of her motor vehicle. The husband was to retain ownership of various assets, including monies received from the sale of his previous vehicle, his current motor vehicle, and his boat, as well as any equity he received from the former matrimonial home. Each party was to be solely responsible for liabilities in their sole name. A specific allocation of $87,000 was made from the husband's superannuation interest to the wife, with detailed provisions for the trustee of the superannuation fund to facilitate this split payment. The court also imposed an injunction on the husband restraining him from dealing with his superannuation entitlements pending implementation of the orders. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the proceedings in the sum of $7,249.00.