Romano and June

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Romano & June*, considered an application for alteration of property interests between Ms Romano (the applicant wife) and Mr June (the respondent husband). The parties sought orders to finalise their financial affairs following the dissolution of their marriage, with each party requesting specific property and lump sum payments from the other. The trial, which involved complex issues including disputed liabilities, non-disclosure of assets, and the treatment of trust property, spanned fifteen days.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to alter the parties' property interests, and if so, what orders should be made. Key legal issues included the valuation of the property pool, particularly in light of the husband's complex investment arrangements and alleged non-disclosure of assets held through an offshore company. The court also had to consider the admissibility and probative value of expert evidence concerning these arrangements, and the husband's credibility given inconsistent evidence regarding liabilities. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the contributions of each party to the marriage, including the wife's role as homemaker and her international travel, and the husband's significant financial contributions.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections 79(1) and 79(2), to determine if a property settlement was just and equitable. It considered the seven matters listed in section 79(4), including the parties' contributions and the future needs of each party under section 75(2). The court addressed the challenges posed by the husband's offshore company and the limited access to its records under British Virgin Islands law, ultimately finding that the husband's remuneration suggested a greater involvement than merely a contractor. The court also considered the admissibility of expert evidence, noting exceptions to the hearsay rule for business records, and addressed issues of witness credibility and disputed liabilities.

The court ordered a property adjustment whereby the wife would retain specific real properties, motor vehicles, household contents, shares, and bank accounts. The husband was ordered to refinance all joint liabilities and discharge mortgages securing his sole liabilities within three months. Alternatively, he was to pay the wife a sum of $1,338,468 or refinance that amount of her sole liabilities. The orders also stipulated the sale of the husband's property at A Street, Western Australia, and potentially his boat, if he failed to comply with his obligations, with the proceeds to be applied towards discharging liabilities. Upon compliance, the husband would retain his remaining property, and the wife was to discharge any caveats she had lodged. The court also made provisions for the implementation of the orders and adjourned the question of costs.