TAYLOR & TAYLOR

In the matter of *Taylor & Taylor*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between a husband and wife. The marriage was long, but the parties had minimal non-superannuation assets remaining after significant financial difficulties, including the husband's bankruptcy and forced property sales due to mortgage defaults. The husband's primary financial contribution during the marriage stemmed from a lump sum payment received for a disability sustained during service, which had since been depleted.

The central legal issues before the court were how to achieve a just and equitable property settlement, particularly in light of the husband's total and permanent disability, his sole responsibility for the parties' three younger children during a four-year post-separation period, and his management of joint debts. The court also had to consider the husband's disability pension, which was not commutable into a lump sum, and the wife's residual earning capacity and ability to increase her superannuation.

Kent J found that the husband's contributions to the marriage were heavily favoured, as were the matters to be considered under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), due to his severe disability, his sole care of the children, and his responsibility for debts. The court determined that it would not be just and equitable to apportion the husband's disability pension. The court declared the wife to be the sole legal and beneficial owner of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the parties' former properties, subject to the National Australia Bank's mortgages. The wife was authorised to receive these funds, and the court ordered that otherwise, each party was to retain their own property, financial resources, and superannuation interests, with all other applications dismissed.