Ramsey & Ramsey

In *Ramsey & Ramsey*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between a husband and wife concerning the division of their property interests. The parties had agreed to a 50 per cent division of their combined property. However, the precise identification of these property interests was contingent upon the resolution of a complex commercial dispute involving third parties, which made it impossible to draft final orders at that stage.

The central legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, the court needed to determine how to proceed given that the parties' property interests could not be definitively ascertained until the outcome of an external commercial dispute was known. Secondly, the court was required to consider whether the conduct of a majority shareholder in issuing shares, which relegated another shareholder to minority status, constituted oppression, particularly in circumstances where the company functioned as a quasi-partnership and the affected shareholder had no prior notice or opportunity to participate in the decision.

Kent J reasoned that the resolution of the commercial dispute was a necessary precursor to determining the parties' property interests and making just and equitable orders under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court acknowledged that this might necessitate the adjournment of proceedings to allow for further expert accounting evidence. Regarding the oppression claim, the court found that the share issue, in the context of a quasi-partnership and without notice to the affected party, amounted to oppression.

Consequently, the court ordered that the proceeding be listed for a directions hearing to allow the parties to make further submissions concerning the terms of the orders to be made, both in relation to the property division and the appropriate remedy for the oppression found.