Lazar and Gordana

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Lazar & Gordana*, considered an application for property settlement. The applicant, Mr Lazar (the husband), had initiated proceedings seeking both parenting and property orders. The respondent, Ms Gordana (the wife), filed a response seeking similar orders. The dispute ultimately proceeded as an undefended hearing on the wife's application for property orders, following the husband's failure to appear and prosecute his own application.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether it was just and equitable to make property orders in the absence of the husband, and if so, how the parties' limited assets should be divided. The Court was required to consider the provisions of section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the parties' contributions, their financial resources, their respective needs, and other relevant circumstances, such as the wife's role as primary carer for two young children and her limited future earning capacity.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the husband's failure to attend court or participate in the proceedings, despite being aware of them, justified proceeding on an undefended basis and dismissing his application. The Court identified three categories of assets: funds held in a solicitor's trust account, the husband's superannuation entitlement, and two motor vehicles. Applying section 79, the Court found it just and equitable to make orders favouring the wife, given her significant contributions as primary carer, her current financial dependence, and her limited future prospects, contrasted with the husband's lack of financial support since separation and his apparent control over the motor vehicles. The Court noted the difficulty in enforcing orders regarding the motor vehicles.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the husband's application be dismissed. The funds held in the solicitor's trust account were to be paid to the wife. The husband's superannuation entitlement was to be split, with a specific amount allocated to the wife, and the trustee was directed to facilitate the creation of a new interest in the wife's name. Each party was to retain other assets in their possession, and all outstanding applications were dismissed. The trustee of the superannuation fund was granted liberty to apply to set aside the orders within 14 days of service if procedural fairness had not been accorded.