MATTHEWS & NORRIS

In a family law matter before Cleary J, the husband and wife disputed the division of their matrimonial property and sought variation of existing parenting orders. The property dispute involved the husband's assertion that he had provided the majority of funds for the parties' first home, which were subsequently used for the benefit of the relationship. The wife had resigned from the parties' company, leaving the husband as sole director to manage significant debts, and had been made bankrupt by choice. Furthermore, the wife had allegedly failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure, hindering the court's ability to reach a fully informed conclusion. In relation to parenting, the wife sought to vary final orders made in 2017, under which the child resided with the father and had limited, discretionary time with the mother.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make an adjustment to the parties' interests in their matrimonial property, considering the factors outlined in section 79(4) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Additionally, the court had to assess whether the factors under section 75(2) of the Act favoured either party in the property adjustment. In the parenting matter, the court needed to consider whether there was a credible change in circumstances or a new factor arising since the final parenting orders were made in 2017, applying the principles established in *Rice v Asplund*.

Regarding the property division, Cleary J found that the section 79(4) factors favoured the husband, particularly given his significant financial contributions to the initial property acquisition and his subsequent management of company debts after the wife's departure. The court also considered the section 75(2) factors to favour the husband, noting his role as the sole carer of the parties' child and the wife's limited capacity to provide child support. The wife's failure to provide full and frank financial disclosure was a significant impediment to a comprehensive assessment, leading the court to conclude that the division would be as just and equitable as possible under the circumstances. In the parenting proceedings, the court found no credible evidence of a change in circumstances or new factors since the 2017 final orders were made, and therefore dismissed the wife's application for variation.

Consequently, the court ordered that the husband retain the remaining Australian assets and liabilities, with a cash adjustment to be paid by the wife to the husband. The wife was ordered to pay the husband a sum of $589,178 and transfer her shares in Matthews Pty Ltd to him. The husband was declared the sole legal and beneficial owner of the net proceeds from the sale of the P Town and Suburb F properties. The court also made detailed orders regarding the division of the parties' superannuation interests, with the husband to receive 100 per cent of the wife's member account. The wife was also required to resign as a director and member of the Trustee and the Fund, and transfer her shares in the Trustee to the husband. The wife's application to vary the parenting orders was dismissed.