KANE & KANE

In the matter of *Kane & Kane*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia determined property settlement orders between a husband and wife. The dispute concerned the division of the parties' matrimonial asset pool, including real property, company shares, and significant superannuation interests. The court was required to assess the reasonableness of certain expenditures by the husband, determine whether his vested superannuation interests constituted divisible property, and include these interests in the overall asset pool.

The court was also tasked with assessing the parties' respective contributions to their superannuation interests and other assets. Specifically, it needed to consider financial contributions made from jointly held funds, the husband's investment skill in increasing the superannuation interests, and the parties' agreement regarding equal pre-separation and post-separation contributions to other assets. Finally, the court had to consider whether any adjustments to the property division were warranted, taking into account the husband's retired status and access to superannuation, the wife's capacity for employment, her cohabitation with a new partner who earned a comfortable income, and the source of financial support for their youngest child.

Austin J reasoned that the husband's vested superannuation interests were divisible property and included them in the asset pool. The court found that while financial contributions to superannuation were equal, the husband's investment skill and expertise had significantly increased these interests, leading to a finding that his contribution to superannuation was greater than the wife's. Regarding other assets, the court accepted the parties' agreement that pre-separation and post-separation contributions were equal. No adjustment was made in favour of the wife, despite the husband's retired status and access to superannuation, as the wife had the capacity for employment, her income-earning capacity was inferior to the husband's, and she was cohabiting with a partner who earned a comfortable income.

The court made orders that the husband would become the sole owner of the real property and shares in K Company, with the husband indemnifying the wife against associated liabilities. The wife's superannuation benefits in R Investments were to be rolled over to a fund nominated by her. The husband was ordered to pay the wife a sum of $719,723. Each party was declared the sole owner of other assets in their possession and solely liable for associated debts. The Registrar was empowered to execute documents if a party refused to do so. Costs were reserved for 28 days, and all outstanding applications were dismissed.