Teesdale and Wileman

The Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between Ms Teesdale (the wife) and Mr Wileman (the husband). The parties cohabited from 1990 and married in 1993, separating in September 2009. The wife brought a child from a previous relationship into the marriage, and the parties acquired a property together, "Property P", in 1990. During the marriage, the wife received substantial inheritances, and the husband made contributions to the care of the wife's child and allegedly worked on properties owned by a company in which the wife held shares. The wife also claimed an adjustment in her favour due to domestic violence perpetrated by the husband.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the weight to be given to the wife's inheritance, whether the husband contributed to that inheritance, the value of the husband's superannuation, the husband's contributions to the care of the wife's child, and whether the husband's behaviour warranted an adjustment in the wife's favour under the principles established in *Kennon v Kennon*. The court also needed to address discrepancies in the husband's evidence regarding his initial contributions to the relationship.

Rees J found that the husband had failed to establish significant assets at the commencement of cohabitation due to inconsistencies in his evidence. While the wife received inheritances from 1997 onwards, the court determined that these shares in Teesdale Pty Ltd provided little or no practical benefit to her until after the parties' separation in 2010, when she gained the right to occupy and profit from agricultural properties. The court found no evidence that the husband contributed to the wife's inheritance. Regarding the *Kennon* claim, the court concluded that the case did not fall within the compass of exceptional cases requiring an adjustment for domestic violence.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife $116,000 within three months. Upon this payment, the parties were to transfer their interests in "Property P" to the husband. If the husband failed to make this payment, Property P was to be sold, with proceeds disbursed first for sale costs, then $319,000 to the husband, followed by 30 per cent of any amount exceeding $435,000 to the husband, and the balance to the wife. Otherwise, each party was to retain their existing property.