KROLL & KROLL

In the matter of *Kroll & Kroll*, Bell J of the Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement and spousal maintenance dispute between a husband and wife. The husband brought substantial assets to the marriage and continued to contribute significantly to the parties' finances throughout the relationship. The wife, conversely, was the primary caregiver for the parties' two children and had a limited capacity to support herself financially, exacerbated by a significant disparity in earning capacities between the parties.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' assets, taking into account their respective contributions and the factors outlined in section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to assess whether certain borrowings advanced to the husband by his father's estate constituted a debt owed by the husband, and if so, how these liabilities should be treated in the property settlement. Furthermore, the court had to consider the wife's claim for spousal maintenance, given her current inability to obtain gainful employment and the shared care arrangements for the children, balanced against the husband's capacity to pay.

In relation to the property settlement, Bell J found that while the husband's contributions were assessed as 70% and the wife's as 30%, the wife's limited financial capacity and the disparity in earning capacities warranted an adjustment under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court determined that the first tranche of borrowings from the husband's father's estate was a gift, but the second tranche was a debt of the parties. The third tranche, having been applied by the husband to legal costs, was also deemed a debt. The court indicated that a 15% adjustment would be made in favour of the wife.

No final orders had been issued at the time of this judgment.