PARDO & SILVE

In *Pardo & Silve*, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between a husband and wife, as well as issues relating to child support. The proceedings involved the division of various assets, including bank accounts, shares in a company, and superannuation interests, and also addressed the wife's child support liability and the funding of their child's private school fees.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' global property pool, taking into account their respective contributions under sections 79(4)(d) to (g) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. A key issue was whether the husband's superannuation should be split between the parties. Additionally, the court had to consider a departure from the administrative assessment of child support, specifically to increase the wife's liability and to establish a fund for the child's private school fees.

Watts J applied a global approach to the property settlement, treating all assets as part of a single pool for division. The court ordered the disbursement of funds from a joint bank account, with a specific allocation to each party and a remaining balance to be split 60% to the husband and 40% to the wife. The husband was ordered to pay off certain credit card debts. The wife was to transfer her shares in M Pty Ltd to the husband, who would then be responsible for the liquidation of M Pty Ltd and M Discretionary Trust, with any remaining funds distributed in the same 60/40 ratio. Crucially, the court ordered a base amount of the husband's superannuation to be paid to the wife, and further provided for future splittable payments from his superannuation to be made to the wife in accordance with the *Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001*. Each party was to retain other property and superannuation in their sole names, with mutual indemnities for associated debts.

Regarding child support, the court departed from the administrative assessment, increasing the wife's monthly liability and ordering her to pay one half of the child's private school fees and associated expenses until she turned 18 or completed secondary schooling. Furthermore, a lump sum of $60,000 from the husband and $40,000 from the wife was to be placed into a cash management fund to cover the child's private school fees, with any remaining balance to be divided 40% to the wife and 60% to the husband upon completion of secondary education. The husband was otherwise responsible for costs associated with the child's education while funds remained in the account. The court also included provisions for the Registrar of the Family Court to execute documents if a party failed to do so.