Marsden and Baker

This case involved property and spousal maintenance proceedings between Ms Marsden (the wife) and Mr Baker (the husband). The parties' relationship lasted approximately three and a half years, from 2006 to 2009. The husband, who was once a wealthy individual, claimed his wealth had significantly diminished, particularly after the Global Financial Crisis. The wife alleged the husband possessed substantial assets and was attempting to conceal them to defeat her claims. The proceedings were heard in the Family Court of Australia by Benjamin J.

The court was required to determine several key issues. These included the reliability of the evidence presented by both parties and their witnesses, the husband's true financial circumstances, the respective contributions of each party to the relationship, and whether the husband had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his property. Additionally, the court had to consider the wife's ability to find paid employment, the nature of her current relationship, and her entitlement to periodic and/or lump sum spousal maintenance. The wife sought a capital payment of $2 million, either as property adjustment or spousal maintenance, while the husband contended he was largely impecunious and proposed transferring interests in various companies and trusts, which he asserted were valueless.

Benjamin J applied the fundamental principle in family law that parties must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to the court and to each other, referencing cases such as *Black & Kellner* and *Livesey v Jenkins*. The court found that the husband's financial position was complex, involving intricate company and trust structures, and that his claims of impecuniosity were met with skepticism, particularly in light of his past wealth and the wife's assertions of concealment. The court also considered the wife's new relationship and the significant spousal support she had received since 2009. The court noted the husband's agreement to indemnify the wife for personal tax liabilities accrued during the relationship, treating this as uncontentious.

The court ordered that the spousal maintenance order made in February 2012 be discharged. The wife's applications for both periodic and lump sum spousal maintenance were dismissed, and her application for enforcement of the maintenance order was also dismissed. In terms of property, the husband was ordered to pay the wife $330,000 within sixty days. The wife was to retain her Porsche motor vehicle, and each party was to be solely entitled to property in their possession, with joint bank account funds to become the wife's property. The husband was to indemnify the wife for any personal tax liabilities to the Australian Taxation Office accrued during the relationship. All other extant applications were dismissed.