PHU & TRAN

The Family Court of Australia heard proceedings between Mr Phu (applicant husband) and Mrs Tran (first respondent wife), and their son, Mr B Phu (second respondent). The dispute concerned the division of property following a 64-year marriage, with the second respondent son claiming an interest in two real properties. The applicant husband had initially sought a property division but later discontinued his application.

The court was required to determine the legal and beneficial interests of the parties in the C Street and F Street properties, particularly in light of the second respondent's claim that he had made direct financial contributions to their acquisition. The court also needed to ensure that any orders made were just and equitable, reflecting the parties' contributions throughout their long marriage and considering the provisions of section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Johns, having considered the unchallenged evidence presented by the second respondent regarding his financial contributions to the acquisition of both properties, was satisfied that the second respondent held beneficial interests in them. The court accepted the second respondent's contention that the F Street property was purchased with his savings and borrowed funds, and that it was registered in the wife's name as trustee for asset protection. Similarly, the court accepted that the C Street property was registered in the second respondent's name, reflecting his interest. The court noted that the first respondent's litigation guardian agreed with the proposed orders.

By consent between the first and second respondents, and not opposed by the applicant, the court ordered the removal of caveats lodged by the second respondent against the C Street and F Street properties. The court further ordered the transfer of the first respondent's interest in the F Street property to the second respondent and declared that the first respondent held that property on trust for the second respondent. The court also declared that the second respondent held all legal and beneficial interest in the C Street property. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.