Kamyar and Kiani and Anor

This matter concerned property settlement proceedings between Ms Kamyar (the applicant wife) and Mr Kiani (the respondent husband), with an intervenor, Mr P Kiani (the husband's brother). The dispute, which originated in the Federal Magistrates Court and was transferred to the Family Court of Australia, primarily involved the division of the parties' assets, including the former matrimonial home and the husband's superannuation. Welfare issues concerning the parties' two children had been resolved prior to the hearing.

The court was required to determine the terms of consent orders that would achieve a just and equitable division of the parties' property. A significant issue was a claim by the husband's brother for moneys allegedly advanced to the husband, exceeding $200,000. The court also needed to consider the financial positions of both parties, including the wife's ability to continue residing in the former matrimonial home and the husband's substantial income and secured future.

Justice Guest applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to ensure the consent orders were just and equitable. The court noted that the parties had engaged in extensive litigation, incurring significant legal costs. Following a Judicial Settlement Conference, the parties reached a resolution that involved the wife retaining the former matrimonial home, valued at $400,000, subject to paying the husband $120,000. The husband would retain his superannuation, valued at approximately $216,000. The court found this division, reflecting an approximate 60-40 adjustment in favour of the wife, to be just and equitable given the circumstances, including the wife's ongoing responsibilities with the youngest child.

The court made orders reflecting the agreed settlement. These included the wife paying $120,000 to the husband by a specified date, contemporaneously with the transfer of the husband's interest in the former matrimonial home to the wife. Provisions were made for the sale of the property if the payment was not made, with the proceeds to be applied first to sale costs, then to discharge any mortgage, then to satisfy the outstanding payment to the husband with interest, and any balance to the wife. The wife was granted sole occupation of the home pending payment or sale, and was to be responsible for outgoings. The husband was to indemnify the wife against any claims by his brother. Other orders dealt with the division of personal property, jewellery for the children, and potential future claims by Iranian government institutions regarding the husband's scholarship. The applications of the husband, wife, and intervenor were otherwise dismissed.