Pavone and Pavone & Ors

The proceedings involved the applicant wife and the first respondent husband seeking property settlement orders. The court also considered the intervention of the Commissioner of Taxation, who sought to recover outstanding taxation liabilities from the parties. The dispute arose in the context of two private corporations, a self-managed superannuation fund, and a partnership created by the spouses, with substantial uncertainty surrounding their current financial affairs.

The court was required to determine whether the husband had been denied procedural fairness by the trial proceeding in his absence, given he had provided short notice of his inability to attend but had not sought an adjournment. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether it was just and equitable to adjust the spouses' property interests, given the lack of jointly owned assets or debts and the significant financial uncertainties. The court also had to assess the appropriateness of making third-party orders, specifically concerning the Commissioner of Taxation's claim and the proposed use of a corporation's assets to satisfy those liabilities, and whether spousal maintenance should be ordered.

Austin J found that the husband had not been denied procedural fairness, as he was content for the trial to proceed in his absence. Regarding property settlement, the court determined that it was not just and equitable to make any adjustment orders under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) due to the impossibility of fairly assessing the parties' interests in ignorance of their comparative values. Consequently, the court found no occasion to invoke s 90AE of the Act in relation to the Commissioner's claim. However, the court did make orders for spousal maintenance, requiring the husband to pay $800 per week to the wife, with the payments to cease upon specific events related to the sale of property and cessation of business activities. Pursuant to s 78 of the Act, the court declared the wife indebted to the Commissioner for $115,417.23 and the husband indebted for $196,491.01, ordering them to pay these amounts within two months.