Twigg v Twigg (No 6); Lambert v Twigg Investments Pty Ltd (No 5)

In the Family Court of Australia, Twigg v Twigg (No 6); Lambert v Twigg Investments Pty Ltd (No 5) involved a complex dispute concerning family law and trust assets. The case revolved around the apportionment of trust assets following tracing and the consideration of offers of compromise under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court had to determine whether the offerees had sufficient information to properly assess the offers and whether they had a reasonable time to consider the offers. Additionally, the court had to decide on the apportionment of trust assets where the successful plaintiffs had varying percentages of interest in the trust property.

The legal issues at the heart of the case included the adequacy of information provided to the offerees to make an informed decision on the offers, the sufficiency of the time given to consider the offers, and the appropriate method of apportionment of trust assets. The court also needed to consider whether a costs order or a freezing order made by consent should be set aside, especially in light of the interrelated proceedings and the differing outcomes.

The court ruled that the offerees did not have adequate information to properly consider the offers, as the offers were made during a phase of litigation where not all relevant information was available. The court found that the offerees did not have a reasonable time to consider the offers due to the procedural complexities and the need for additional information. Regarding the apportionment of trust assets, the court held that it was appropriate for each successful plaintiff to select specific assets to be transferred to them in specie for an amount equivalent to their respective percentage interest in the trust, rather than allocating a share of each individual asset. This approach ensured that each plaintiff received assets of their choosing, reflecting their respective interests in the trust.

The court's final orders included the setting aside of the costs order and the freezing order made by consent, as well as the direction that the apportionment of trust assets be carried out as per the court's decision on the selection of specific assets in specie. The court's detailed analysis and findings provided clarity on the proper approach to offers of compromise and the apportionment of trust assets in complex family law disputes.