Leclair and Abel

This matter came before Judge Neville concerning financial orders sought by the Wife against the Husband. The dispute centred on the division of property and financial resources, with the Wife alleging significant non-disclosure and dissipation of assets by the Husband following their separation. The Wife contended that the Husband had received substantial sums, exceeding $631,000 in redundancy and superannuation payments, as well as wages and other income, between July 2015 and July 2017, to which she had received comparatively minimal financial support.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it needed to assess the Husband's disclosure of financial receipts and transactions, particularly in light of the Wife's submissions that he had failed to disclose numerous financial dealings to his advantage, some of which reduced the available pool of assets for distribution. Secondly, the court had to consider the parties' respective contributions to the marriage, including the Husband's greater financial contributions from income and the Wife's contributions as a homemaker and mother, as well as the impact of inheritances received by the Wife. Thirdly, the court was tasked with evaluating the relevance of various section 75(2) factors, including the Wife's significant disability and inability to work, and the Husband's capacity to earn income. Finally, the court had to determine how to address the Husband's expenditure of significant funds for his sole benefit, considering principles of just and equitable distribution and the potential for adjustments under section 75(2)(o) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

In reaching its decision, the court considered the Wife's submissions regarding the Husband's financial conduct, noting that where the Husband's evidence conflicted with the Wife's, the court would likely favour the Wife's evidence. The court acknowledged the principle established in *Chang v Su* that where deliberate non-disclosure occurs, the court's imperative is to make a just and equitable order, and in such circumstances, it should not be unduly cautious in favouring the innocent party. The court also had regard to the disparity in funds expended by the parties, drawing parallels with *Grier & Malphas*, and the need to address this disparity, either through "addbacks" or by reference to section 75(2)(o). The court was to consider that the Husband's use of funds for his sole benefit deprived the Wife of property to which she was entitled, requiring expression in some form within the final orders. The court was to consider all circumstances to make appropriate orders in accordance with the Applicant Wife's Amended Case Outline.