Murray and Murray (No 3)

In *Murray and Murray (No 3)*, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia determined property settlement orders sought by each party pursuant to section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The proceedings were complicated by the husband's concession of involvement in money laundering and findings that he had failed to make full and frank disclosure. Consequently, the court made adverse credit findings against the husband and expressed a lack of confidence in his stated financial circumstances and the completeness of known assets, impacting the assessment of contributions.

The court was required to determine the appropriate property settlement, considering the husband's lack of full and frank disclosure and the resulting uncertainty regarding his financial position. Additionally, the court considered the wife's application for enforcement of certain financial obligations under interim orders, which largely became nugatory upon the delivery of the final judgment. The court also had to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to make an order enforcing child support arrears against the husband.

Watts J reasoned that given the husband's lack of candour and the resulting lack of confidence in his financial disclosure, the court was not required to be overly cautious in making assumptions or drawing inferences in his favour. An adjustment was made in favour of the wife under section 79(4)(d)-(g) of the Act, taking into account, among other factors, the husband's non-disclosure. Regarding the wife's application for enforcement, the court found insufficient evidence to make an order for child support arrears, and consequently, both the wife's application and the husband's response were dismissed.

The court made property settlement orders, including the transfer of the husband's interest in the Suburb C property to the wife, subject to her discharging the existing mortgage. Provisions were made for the wife to make mortgage payments pending the transfer, or for the property to be listed for sale if she failed to comply. The proceeds of sale would be distributed in a specified order. The wife was declared solely entitled to monies held by H Firm and associated entities. Each party was to transfer assets and indemnify the other in respect of liabilities as detailed in a table within the reasons for judgment, with each party otherwise retaining assets in their name. The Registrar was appointed to execute documents if a party neglected to do so.