Shea-Frost and Frost

In *Shea-Frost & Frost* [2013] FamCA 363, the Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between Ms Shea-Frost (the wife) and Mr Frost (the husband). The parties had separated in March 2008 after a 17-year marriage, but had not resolved their property interests five years later. The wife alleged that the husband had failed to disclose documents and had hidden assets, while the husband contended that there were negligible assets to divide and that he had provided the wife with a significant sum of money post-separation.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it was just and equitable to make any order altering the parties' respective property interests, pursuant to section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the Court to determine the extent of the parties' assets and resources, and to assess the contributions made by each party to the marriage, both financially and non-financially. The Court also had to consider the husband's alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders and the wife's claims of hidden assets.

Justice Cronin found that, on the evidence presented, the husband's position was correct. The Court was satisfied that there were no assets of significant value that could justify making an order for adjustment of property interests, nor could any such order be practically enforced. The wife's claims of hidden assets were not substantiated by sufficient evidence, and her own concessions regarding the financial position at the time of separation and the lack of significant assets were critical to the Court's determination. The Court noted that despite the wife's complaints about disclosure, no action was taken to enforce discovery, and the forensic accountant's report commissioned by the wife indicated that the husband's interest in his business was negligible.

Consequently, the Court held that it was not just and equitable to make any order to alter the property interests of the parties. The wife's application was dismissed, and the husband's response seeking dismissal of the wife's application was upheld. The Court also made orders regarding the potential for applications for costs, to be determined by written submission.