HARDING & NORTH

In the matter of Harding & North, Judge Scarlett of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for property settlement following a twelve-year de facto relationship. The dispute concerned the division of the parties' assets and liabilities, with a particular focus on the impact of the respondent's diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, which rendered him unable to work.

The court was required to determine whether the property settlement could be considered just and equitable, and specifically, whether an adjustment should be made under section 90SF(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to account for the respondent's circumstances. The court also addressed procedural issues concerning the applicant's defective application and an application for discovery.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that the respondent's significant health issues and consequent inability to work necessitated a substantial adjustment to achieve a just and equitable outcome. The court applied the principles of property adjustment under the *Family Law Act*, considering the contributions of both parties and the future needs arising from the respondent's medical condition. The court found that the respondent's inability to work was a critical factor in determining the appropriate division of property.

The court ordered that the applicant retain specific personal property, including his motor vehicle, household items, and all cash in his bank accounts, as well as his superannuation entitlements. The applicant was also to be solely responsible for a list of specified debts. Conversely, the respondent was to retain his motor vehicle, household items, and cash in his bank accounts, along with his superannuation entitlements, and was to be solely responsible for a separate list of debts. The parties were ordered to pay their own costs, and all other applications were dismissed.