Konda and Konda & Ors

In *Konda and Konda & Ors*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for property settlement, where the husband had allegedly disposed of assets to defeat her anticipated relief. The second respondent, the husband's brother, was joined to the proceedings due to his involvement in the transfer of certain properties. The wife sought orders under section 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to set aside dispositions of property made by the husband.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband's dispositions of property, including a property and shareholding transferred to his brother, and funds transferred to family members in India, were made to defeat the wife's claim for property settlement. The court also considered the application of the principles established in *Halabi v Artillaga* (1994) FLC 92-470 regarding such dispositions, and whether the wife was entitled to relief under section 106B of the Act. The court also addressed the procedural fairness of the proceedings concerning a third respondent who did not appear.

Austin J found that the husband's disposition of the Suburb C property and his shareholding in D Pty Ltd to his brother were indeed made to defeat the wife's anticipated relief and ordered these transactions to be set aside pursuant to section 106B of the *Family Law Act*. The court reasoned that these transfers were not arm's length transactions and were designed to remove assets from the pool available for property settlement. The court also determined that the question of procedural fairness in relation to the third respondent was moot as no final orders would bind that party.

The court ordered the setting aside of the transfers of the Suburb C property and the shareholding in D Pty Ltd, requiring their reconveyance to the first respondent. The Suburb C property and the E Street property were to be sold by public auction, with the applicant appointed as trustee for sale. The net proceeds of these sales were to be disbursed, with a specific sum paid to the wife, followed by 85 percent of the remaining balance to the wife, and the residue to the husband. The court also declared the husband the sole owner of his shareholding in D Pty Ltd following compliance with the orders.