THORNLEY & THORNLEY

The case of *Thornley & Thornley* concerned a dispute between a husband and wife regarding property settlement and child support. The marriage was long, and the husband had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances. He had also received significant inheritances both before and after the separation. The court found the husband to be in a superior financial position with greater future income-earning capacity compared to the wife.

The primary legal issues before the court were how to treat the husband's inheritances, whether to make an adjustment to the wife's property entitlement under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and whether to depart from administrative child support assessments. The court also considered the wife's application for spouse maintenance.

Foster J reasoned that the husband's inheritance contributions should be considered a financial resource rather than part of the matrimonial pool for division. An adjustment was made in favour of the wife under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to account for her continued primary care of the children, her inferior financial resources, and her lesser future income-earning capacity compared to the husband. The court also found it appropriate to depart from administrative child support assessments due to a significant difference between the husband's financial circumstances revealed at trial and those known to the Child Support Agency.

The court ordered the husband to pay a sum of $11,184 to the wife within fourteen days, and that the net proceeds of sale of an investment property be paid to the wife. The husband was also ordered to transfer his interest in the former matrimonial home to the wife within three months, with provisions for the discharge of the mortgage and sale of the property if the transfer did not occur. The husband was ordered to pay one-half of the youngest child's school fees and a periodic child support amount, with the periodic assessment not to be reduced by these non-periodic payments. The wife's application for spouse maintenance was dismissed, and all outstanding applications were dismissed.