Sikorski & Sikorski

This matter came before Burr J in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning competing applications for property settlement between a husband and wife. The parties, aged 58 and 47 respectively, were married in April 1988 and disputed the exact date of their separation, which occurred between late 2002 and late 2004, following a marriage of 14 to 16 years. The dispute involved numerous real estate transactions undertaken during the marriage, the ownership of certain properties, and the disposal of significant funds by both parties.

The court was required to determine several preliminary issues before addressing the overall property division. These included the precise date of separation, whether a property in Se was owned by the parties' daughter or held in trust for them, the existence and division of cash amounts, the beneficial interest of the husband's parents in two units at G, and the disposition of proceeds from divided properties by both parties. The court also had to consider whether to notionally add back various amounts to the asset pool for distribution. A central issue was the validity and effect of an informal "Final Separation Agreement" executed by the parties in October 2003, which a solicitor had advised was not binding.

Burr J found that the husband's evidence was often unsatisfactory and, in at least one instance, amounted to perjury, particularly concerning the date of separation. The court preferred the wife's evidence where there was conflict. The total asset pool for distribution was valued at $1,738,000. The court determined that an equal division was appropriate, resulting in each party receiving assets valued at $869,000. The husband had retained assets totalling $863,000, meaning a payment of $6,000 was due from the wife to the husband. The court rejected the husband's application for a significantly larger share of the remaining assets, deeming his proposal unjust and inequitable, particularly given his wasteful expenditure of his share of the property after the informal settlement. The court noted that the wife would be left with a greater amount of assets due to the husband's unilateral divestment of his share.