Paskovas and Paskovas

In *Paskovas and Paskovas*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for the settlement of property following the parties' separation. The husband did not appear at the hearing, and the proceedings were dealt with on an undefended basis. The court was required to determine the division of the parties' assets and liabilities, taking into account their contributions, financial circumstances, and future needs.

The primary legal issues before the court were the valuation and division of the parties' property pool, which included two properties, a motor vehicle, household contents, and superannuation interests. The court also had to consider the husband's drawings from joint facilities and the wife's financial contributions and sacrifices during the marriage, including her extended absence from the paid workforce and her ongoing health issues. Furthermore, the court needed to address the husband's lack of financial disclosure and his failure to participate in the proceedings, which impacted the ability to ascertain the full extent of the marital assets.

Justice Loughnan applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 79, to determine a just and equitable distribution of property. The court accepted the wife's valuations of the properties and her financial statements, noting the absence of any contrary evidence from the husband. The court found that the wife's contributions as homemaker and her assistance in the husband's business, coupled with her reduced earning capacity and health concerns, warranted a significant adjustment in her favour. The court also considered the husband's drawings from joint facilities as an "add back" to the asset pool, consistent with case law such as *In the Marriage of Omacini*.

The court made orders appointing the wife as trustee for the sale of the two properties, with the proceeds to be distributed after payment of sale costs and mortgages, with 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband. The court also declared each party the sole owner of items in their possession and granted the wife an injunction restraining the husband from drawing further on joint credit facilities. Finally, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of the proceedings, noting his lack of participation and disclosure had unnecessarily prolonged the litigation and increased the wife's expenses.