LABROS & NADER

In the matter of *Labros & Nader*, Judge Brown of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the property settlement of a de facto couple who had been in a relationship for approximately thirty years. The parties had one adult child, aged 26, who had special needs. The applicant had primarily fulfilled home duties and parenting responsibilities, while the respondent had been the main breadwinner. The dispute involved assets comprising two properties and superannuation interests of relatively modest value. A significant issue arose from the respondent's clandestine relationship with another person overseas, to whom he had advanced over $200,000 from joint assets to support that person and their two children. The applicant sought to have this sum added back to the asset pool dollar for dollar.

The court was required to determine how to approach the sum advanced by the respondent overseas in the context of assessing contributions and prospective needs to achieve a just and equitable property settlement. Additionally, the applicant sought indemnity costs based on the respondent's conduct, particularly the timing of his admission regarding the overseas payments, and the court had to consider whether such an order for costs was just.

Judge Brown reasoned that the applicant's contributions as an exemplary parent and homemaker, alongside the respondent's role as the primary breadwinner, were significant factors in assessing the contributions of each party. The court also considered the prospective needs of the parties in making its determination. Regarding the substantial sum advanced overseas, the court's approach, while not explicitly detailed in the provided text, ultimately led to a division of assets and superannuation that aimed to be just and equitable. The court also considered the respondent's admitted payments overseas when deciding on costs.

The court ordered a full and final settlement of the de facto property applications. The respondent was to transfer his entire interest in the former family home to the applicant and discharge any associated mortgages. The applicant was to indemnify the respondent regarding liabilities for the former family home and any debts owed to the respondent's sister or other family members. A base amount of $115,000 was allocated to the applicant from the respondent's superannuation interest in Super Fund AA, with corresponding future payment entitlements. Each party was to retain their respective personal property, motor vehicles, savings, investments, and other specified assets, with the applicant retaining the former family home and the respondent retaining his other real property and superannuation interests. No order was made as to costs, and all other applications were dismissed.