Keskin and Keskin (No 3)

This case, *Keskin & Keskin (No. 3)* [2021] FamCA 169, concerned property settlement proceedings in the Family Court of Australia between Ms. Keskin (the applicant wife) and Mr. Keskin (the first respondent husband). The matter had a lengthy procedural history, including a previous final order that was set aside on appeal and remitted for rehearing. The dispute primarily revolved around the valuation of an overseas property and the division of other assets, with the parties agreeing to proceed based on affidavit evidence and oral submissions due to the wife's refusal to continue cross-examination.

The legal issues before the Court included determining the value of an overseas property, specifically the correct exchange rate to be used for its conversion into Australian dollars, and accounting for any reduction in value due to the wife's non-compliance with prior sale orders. The Court also had to consider the parties' contributions to the marriage and their respective circumstances under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to determine a just and equitable property adjustment, particularly in light of the wife's request for a 20% adjustment in her favour and her receipt of a partial property settlement.

Justice Macmillan reasoned that the overseas property should be included in the asset pool based on the single expert's valuation converted to AUD as at the date of judgment, with any reduction in value due to the wife's non-compliance with sale orders being taken into account. The Court noted that any sale exceeding the estimated figure would be adjusted according to final percentages. Regarding the property adjustment, the Court found that while the parties had agreed their contributions were equal, a 10% adjustment in favour of the wife was warranted due to section 75(2) factors, acknowledging she had already received a partial settlement. The Court also made consent orders dismissing all extant applications involving the second respondent, Mr. R Keskin, the husband's father, and releasing him from further participation in the proceedings.

The Court ordered that the wife's and husband's further amended responses be adjourned for mention. The judgment noted that publication of the decision under the pseudonym *Keskin & Keskin* had been approved.