Land and Chew

In the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, Justice Cronin presided over proceedings between Mr Land (the applicant husband) and Ms Chew (the respondent wife). The dispute concerned property settlement following a marriage of 21 years and a separation of 10 years, during which the disparity in the parties' financial positions had become significant. The wife was stated to possess assets of approximately one million dollars, while the husband had effectively no assets.

The court was required to determine whether to approve a property settlement agreement put before it, which was based on an application under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Despite the substantial difference in the parties' financial circumstances, the husband had initiated the proceedings and, having divorced, sought to finalise property matters. A key issue was whether the proposed settlement, which the husband acknowledged was "terrible" in his favour, was just and equitable in the circumstances, particularly given the wife's arguments regarding her post-separation contributions to asset building and child-rearing, and potential wastage of assets by the husband through gambling.

Justice Cronin reasoned that while it can be difficult to find a settlement just and equitable when one party has substantial assets and the other has nothing, he was satisfied in this instance. This satisfaction was based on the pragmatic, commercial approach taken by both parties, acknowledging the likely arguments concerning post-separation contributions and wastage. The court also noted that parties could agree to a settlement and then act differently outside of court. Consequently, the court made orders in terms of a minute of proposed orders, which were to be engrossed by the husband's solicitor within seven days. Transcripts of the discussion and the reasons for judgment were ordered to be placed on the court file.