Idoni and Idoni

This case involved property adjustment proceedings in the Family Court of Australia between Mr. Idoni (the husband) and Ms. Idoni (the wife). The primary dispute concerned the division of the parties' assets, with significant disagreement regarding the valuation of certain assets and the treatment of losses incurred by the husband. The wife sought "add-backs" to the asset pool for alleged risky investments made by the husband post-separation, which resulted in substantial losses, and also contended that the husband had dissipated funds from their superannuation.

The court was required to determine several key issues. These included whether to include certain losses incurred by the husband on share investments as "add-backs" to the asset pool, the appropriate treatment of a significant reduction in the parties' superannuation fund, the date of separation of the parties, and the quantum of adjustments to be made under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the parties' respective financial circumstances and earning capacities. The court also had to consider the parties' respective contributions to the marriage and the property pool.

Justice Benjamin found that the husband's share investments, which resulted in a loss of approximately $518,863, were commercial risks undertaken for his own purposes and were not reckless or wanton, accepting they should be treated as capital losses. However, the court found the husband's management of the parties' self-managed superannuation fund, which significantly diminished in value from between $200,000-$300,000 to approximately $22,000 due to option trading, was poor. Consequently, the court ordered the entire remaining balance of the superannuation fund be transferred to the wife, and this poor management was also considered in the percentage adjustment of contributions and other factors under section 75(2). The court found the date of separation to be January 2009, rejecting the wife's assertion of January 2007, and made various orders regarding the division of property, including specific sums, the transfer of a motor vehicle, and the allocation of debts.

The final orders included the husband paying a specified sum to the wife, the division of funds held by solicitors, and each party retaining other property in their possession. The husband was to be solely responsible for certain listed debts. The wife was entitled to 100% of splittable payments from the husband's superannuation fund, with the operative time being the date of transfer of transferable benefits. The court also ordered the division of Qantas Frequent Flyer points and dismissed all other outstanding applications. The court also noted that the publication of the judgment under the pseudonym "Idoni & Idoni" was approved by the Chief Justice.