Kazama and Britton (No. 2)

In *Kazama & Britton (No. 2)* [2013] FamCA 545, the Family Court of Australia was asked to determine property adjustment orders following the breakdown of a de facto relationship between Ms Kazama (the de facto wife) and Mr Britton (the de facto husband). The de facto wife sought an 85/15 split of the net assets in the de facto husband's favour, while the de facto husband asserted that the de facto wife had made limited contributions to the relationship. The court had previously made findings on 15 January 2013 regarding the existence and nature of the de facto relationship, including the de facto husband's sponsorship of the de facto wife's immigration to Australia and representations made to the Department of Immigration concerning her contributions.

The primary legal issues before the court were to identify and value the parties' property, assets, financial resources, and liabilities according to common law and equitable principles. The court was then required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make an order altering the parties' interests in these assets. If so, the court needed to identify and assess the relevant contributions of each party and consider the matters set out in section 90SF of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) before determining the appropriate adjustment to the property.

The court's reasoning was significantly influenced by its previous findings, particularly concerning the credibility of the de facto husband's evidence. The court found that the de facto husband's version of events was inconsistent with documentary evidence, including a Form 40SP submitted to the Department of Immigration and notes from an interview with a departmental officer. Consequently, the court placed little reliance on the de facto husband's evidence and generally accepted the de facto wife's account of events. The court also noted the de facto husband's inconsistent valuations of his assets, which undermined confidence in his financial disclosures. The court applied principles of property adjustment under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering both financial and non-financial contributions, as well as the specific circumstances of the parties, including their ages and the nature of their relationship.

The court ordered the de facto husband to pay the de facto wife the sum of $195,000 within two months as an alteration of property interests pursuant to section 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The de facto wife was granted liberty to apply for enforcement of this order should the de facto husband fail to comply.