Morrison and Morrison

In the Family Court of Australia at Sydney, Mr Morrison (the applicant husband) and Mrs Morrison (the respondent wife) sought orders to resolve their property and financial dispute following their divorce. The husband sought orders for the wife to pay him a sum of money, for the distribution of property from the M Family Trust, and for a significant split of the wife's entitlement in the L Pty Limited Superannuation Fund in his favour. The wife sought orders for the husband to resign from directorships and appointor roles in various companies and trusts, to transfer his shareholdings and appointor rights to her, and for the release of a mortgage. She also sought indemnities for taxation liabilities and specific instructions regarding financial accounts and superannuation entitlements.

The court was required to determine the just and equitable division of the parties' property and financial resources, considering their contributions to the marriage, the welfare of the family, and other relevant factors under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975. Key issues included the wife's allegation of the husband's non-disclosure of assets, particularly an alleged undisclosed superannuation fund, and the extent of the wife's gambling losses and their impact on the divisible property pool. The court also needed to assess the parties' respective financial and non-financial contributions throughout the long marriage, their current health and age, and their future income-earning capacities.

Judicial Registrar Johnston applied the four-step approach outlined in *Hickey and Hickey*, first identifying and valuing the parties' property and liabilities, which amounted to a net pool of $779,376. The court then assessed the parties' contributions, finding them to be largely equal overall, despite the wife's initial financial contributions and her primary role in child-rearing, largely due to the husband's significant role in acquiring and managing businesses and trusts. Considering the section 75(2) factors, particularly the disparity in future income-earning capacities, the court determined an adjustment of 4% in favour of the wife. Consequently, the wife was awarded 54% of the divisible property, and the husband 46%.

Due to a lack of specific valuation evidence for certain assets and further submissions required regarding the trusts and superannuation, the court was unable to make final orders reflecting its findings. Accordingly, the parties were granted leave to relist the proceedings for further submissions on the form of the orders.