Todd & Todd

In *Todd & Todd* [2014] FamCA 101, the Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between Ms Todd (the wife) and Mr Todd (the husband) after approximately 27 years of cohabitation. The wife sought final property orders, alleging the husband had gambled significant sums of money and had failed to comply with his disclosure obligations throughout the proceedings. The wife's primary contention was that substantial funds and property, totalling $4,378,275, had been retained and/or utilised by the husband from various sources. She argued that if these monies were reinstated to the parties' separate interests, the husband would have received almost two-thirds of the total property available for distribution, including notional "add-back" property. Consequently, the wife sought to retain not only her own property but also the husband's remaining interests, including his entitlement to a property and his superannuation.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to alter the property interests of the parties under section 79(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and if so, what orders should be made pursuant to section 79(4) of the Act. A significant issue was the treatment of monies allegedly gambled by the husband, which the wife sought to have "added back" to the pool of assets for distribution. The court also had to consider the husband's extensive non-compliance with court orders and disclosure obligations, which the wife argued justified proceeding on an undefended basis.

The court found that it was just and equitable to make orders altering the property interests of the parties. The judgment details specific orders made for the property settlement, including the discharge of a flagging order, a superannuation splitting order in favour of the wife for a specified amount from the husband's AMP Superannuation Fund, and various injunctions to prevent the husband from dealing with his superannuation interest in a way that would render it non-splittable. The orders also stipulated that each party was solely entitled to the property in their possession, with specific provisions for the transfer of funds held by Maria Barbayannis and Co to the wife. The court also noted that publication of the judgment under the pseudonym *Todd & Todd* was approved by the Chief Justice.