PERICLES & HOPMAN

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of *Pericles & Hopman* concerned a dispute over property interests following the breakdown of a fourteen-year de facto relationship. The husband, Mr. Hopman, was found to have made the overwhelming financial contributions to the relationship, while the wife, Ms. Pericles, primarily contributed as a homemaker. The parties did not have children. A key issue was whether payments totalling approximately $300,000 made by the husband to the wife around the time of and after separation should be treated as "add backs" to the property pool, meaning they would be notionally added back to the wife's entitlement.

The court was required to determine the division of the parties' financial relationship. Specifically, it needed to consider the husband's claim that payments made to the wife post-separation were received on account of her entitlement to an alteration of property interests. The court also had to decide how to treat these payments, which had been fully expended by the wife by the time of the trial, in the context of the overall property settlement.

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife a total of $2,340,655.10. This included an immediate payment of $518,003.97 held on trust by the applicant's lawyers, with the balance of $1,822,651.13 to be paid within ninety days. The court did not treat the $300,000 in payments made to the wife as add backs. The orders also detailed the process for the sale of certain properties and the distribution of proceeds, including provisions for the sale of shares if property sale proceeds were insufficient to meet the wife's entitlement. The parties were to retain specific assets for their sole benefit, and joint tenancies were severed. The orders were intended to finally determine the financial relationship between the parties.