Malphas and Grier

In *Malphas & Grier* [2013] FamCA 324, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for property settlement orders between Mr Malphas (the applicant husband) and Ms Grier (the respondent wife). The parties' dispute encompassed disagreements regarding their respective contributions to the matrimonial property pool, the overall balance sheet, and the extent of any adjustment in favour of the wife under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The wife also sought a child support departure order, which the husband opposed. The Commissioner of Taxation had intervened in the proceedings due to substantial tax debts incurred by the parties and their corporate entities in relation to the sale of a business.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to alter the parties' interests in their property. This involved assessing their initial contributions, financial contributions during the marriage, and other relevant factors under sections 79 and 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to consider the impact of significant financial contributions made by the husband during the marriage, which were found to outweigh the totality of the wife's contributions. The court's determination of these matters would then inform the final division of the property.

Stevenson J found that while the parties agreed there was no disparity in their initial contributions, the husband had made significant financial contributions throughout the marriage. The court determined that the totality of the wife's contributions could not match the husband's substantial financial input. Applying the principles from cases such as *Stanford v Stanford* [2012] HCA 52, the court concluded that an adjustment of 10% in the wife's favour, pursuant to section 75(2), was appropriate. This adjustment, when combined with the assessment of contributions, resulted in the husband receiving 60% of the assets and the wife receiving 40%. The court ultimately determined that it was just and equitable to alter the parties' interests and rights in their property. The final orders, made by consent in many respects, detailed the transfer of specific properties, the distribution of funds, and the respective entitlements and obligations of each party concerning various assets, companies, and trusts.