Hsieh and Chow

In the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta, Ms Hsieh (the applicant wife) and Mr Chow (the respondent husband) were in dispute regarding the settlement of their property following the breakdown of their marriage. The parties married in 1997 and separated in 2002, with each having been married previously. Significant disagreements existed concerning the identification and valuation of their assets and liabilities, and the appropriate approach to property division.

The court was required to determine the assets, liabilities, and financial resources of the parties, assess their respective contributions to the marriage, and consider the matters set out in section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including the age, health, and financial circumstances of each party. The court also needed to decide whether to adopt an asset-by-asset or a global approach to property division, and ultimately, to make orders that were just and equitable. Key issues included the valuation of a Korean property, the existence of undisclosed savings by the wife, and the add-back of funds withdrawn from joint bank accounts by both parties.

Stevenson J adopted a modified "two pool" approach, acknowledging the wife's substantial pre-marital assets in Korea and the intermingling of funds in Australia. The court found that the wife's contributions significantly outweighed those of the husband, assessing them at 65% to his 35% in relation to certain jointly acquired assets, and ultimately determining an overall division of 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband for a specific pool of property. Section 75(2) factors, particularly the parties' ages and retirement status, led to a concession of a 5% adjustment in favour of the husband regarding jointly acquired assets.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife $181,000 within three months, representing her share of the former matrimonial home, which the husband intended to retain. In the event of non-payment, the property was to be sold, with proceeds distributed first to agent's commission and expenses, then to the wife for the $181,000, and the balance to the husband. Each party was declared solely entitled to other property in their possession. The husband was also awarded costs for the aborted hearing on 21 November 2006, with the amount to be deducted from the payment due to the wife.