Keach & Keach

In *Keach & Keach*, Strickland J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between a husband and wife concerning the division of their property, spousal maintenance, and child support. The central property dispute involved whether assets held within a trust, of which the husband was a potential beneficiary, should be included in the asset pool for division, or if the trust was a sham and the husband was the true owner of its assets. The wife also sought "add backs" to the asset pool.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to ascertain whether the trust assets should be included in the matrimonial asset pool, which necessitated an examination of whether the trust was a sham. Secondly, the court needed to decide on the appropriate inclusion of "add backs" in the asset pool. Thirdly, the court was tasked with determining the just and equitable division of the net asset pool, considering the parties' contributions and relevant section 75(2) factors of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Finally, the court had to consider the wife's applications for spousal maintenance and for a departure from the administrative assessment of child support, including an order for the husband to pay all of the children's education costs.

Strickland J reasoned that the contributions of the husband and wife overall were equal. However, an adjustment of 30 per cent in favour of the wife was deemed appropriate under section 75(2) factors. This led to a proposed division of the net asset pool at 80 per cent to the wife and 20 per cent to the husband. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court found that the wife had the capacity to obtain gainful employment but had chosen not to, and the husband could not reasonably afford the amount sought. For child support, no grounds were established for a departure order from the administrative assessment, nor was there a basis for an order under section 124 of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) for the husband to pay all educational costs.

The matter was adjourned for further consideration and, if possible, for the making of final orders.