Jacobsen & Jacobsen

The matter of Jacobsen & Jacobsen involved the wife, born in 1976, and the husband, born in 1975. The parties had been in a de facto relationship since 1999 or 2000 and were married in 2001. They had two children, X born in 2006 and Y born in 2009. The date of separation was disputed, with the husband claiming it was on 7 September 2016 and the wife contending it was on 28 August 2017. The wife sought disclosure of financial information related to the family business, H Pty Ltd, of which the husband was the sole director and the parties were equal shareholders. The husband had previously been ordered to provide certain financial information to the wife, but the wife sought further disclosure. The court had to determine whether the wife was entitled to additional disclosure beyond what had already been ordered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife was entitled to further financial disclosure from the husband, beyond the orders already made by the court. The wife argued that she was entitled to more comprehensive disclosure to properly assess the financial position of the family business and to make informed decisions regarding property settlement. The husband contended that he had already provided the court-ordered disclosure and that any further disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy and potentially harmful to the business. The court had to balance the wife's need for information against the husband's privacy and business interests.

The court considered the wife's need for information to make informed decisions about the property settlement and the husband's privacy and business interests. The court found that the wife had not shown that the additional disclosure sought was necessary for the proper conduct of the property settlement proceedings. The court held that the orders already made were sufficient for the wife to make informed decisions and that any further disclosure would not be in the interests of justice. The wife's application for further disclosure was dismissed.

The court made no further orders for additional disclosure. The existing orders for the husband to provide certain financial information to the wife remained in force. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the parties' interests and ensuring that any disclosure orders are proportionate to the needs of the proceedings.