HAWKINS & HAWKINS

In this matter before Kent J of the Family Court of Australia, the parties were husband and wife, married for twelve years without children. The dispute concerned the division of their property and an application for spousal maintenance. A significant factor in the proceedings was the ten-year period that elapsed between the parties' final separation and the trial, during which the wife pursued extensive Supreme Court litigation based on claims ultimately found to be "baseless." The wife had unilaterally obtained substantial funds secured against the former matrimonial home to fund this litigation, incurring costs of $634,000, and causing the husband to incur costs of $235,000.

The court was required to determine the appropriate property settlement, considering the parties' contributions during their twelve-year marriage and the events of the ten years post-separation. Key legal issues included whether to make "notional add backs" of post-separation liabilities and how to assess contributions in light of the wife's extensive and ultimately unsuccessful litigation. The court also had to consider the wife's application for lump sum spousal maintenance.

Kent J reasoned that the wife was solely responsible for the economic consequences of her Supreme Court litigation and that these post-separation liabilities should be excluded from the notional pool for property settlement. The court assessed the parties' contributions, apportioning them 60/40 in the husband's favour, and then considered the section 75(2) factors. In relation to spousal maintenance, the court ordered a lump sum payment of $52,000 to the wife from the amount she owed the husband for his assessed costs of the Supreme Court proceedings.

The final orders provided for the husband to retain a significant portion of the parties' assets, including various business entities and trusts, while the wife was to transfer her shareholding in W Pty Ltd to the husband. The husband was to assume sole responsibility for a joint bank debt. The wife was to receive 45 per cent of any net sale proceeds exceeding $366,595 from the sale of certain units. The husband was to receive the security deposit held by the Supreme Court and remaining proceeds from the sale of B Street. The husband was also to receive 100 per cent of any splittable payment from the wife's superannuation fund. The wife's liability for the husband's costs of the Supreme Court proceedings was reduced, and she was awarded $52,000 as lump sum spousal maintenance.