VARDY & VARDY

The case of Vardy & Vardy concerned applications by the wife for both lump sum child support and a property adjustment. The wife sought a lump sum child support order under section 123A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), arguing the husband's unreliability and failure to disclose his financial position warranted an amount higher than the current assessment. She also sought a property adjustment under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The husband had failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his financial position, leaving the court unable to ascertain the full extent of his assets.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make a lump sum child support order against the husband, and how the parties' net property should be divided. Specifically, the court had to consider the husband's failure to disclose his financial position and his earning capacity in the context of the property settlement.

Regarding the child support application, the court found that as the wife had not sought a departure from the current assessment, a lump sum order in the amount sought would not be appropriate. The court was not satisfied that it would be just and equitable to make a lump sum order against the husband, particularly given his lack of financial disclosure. In relation to the property settlement, the court noted the husband's higher earning capacity and, despite the lack of full disclosure, ordered the husband to pay the wife $200,000 by way of property adjustment.

The court dismissed the wife's application for lump sum child support. It ordered the husband to pay all amounts due under any child support assessment within two months, and to pay the wife $200,000 within the same period. In the event of the husband's failure to make these payments, the wife was appointed trustee of sale of the former matrimonial home, with detailed provisions for its sale and the distribution of proceeds, prioritising the mortgage, sale costs, the $200,000 payment to the wife, and then child support amounts. The husband was also ordered to pay outstanding costs orders.