Walford and Walford

This matter came before Guest J in the Family Court of Australia concerning disputes between Mrs Walford (applicant wife) and Mr Walford (respondent husband), with an Independent Children's Lawyer also represented. The core of the dispute involved significant disagreements regarding child support payments, the wife's claim that the husband had failed to make full and frank discovery of his financial position, and an application to set aside consent orders made in October 2002 concerning property distribution. The parties had separated in April 2002, and there was one child of the marriage born in 1997.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to consider the husband's application for a child support departure, where he asserted financial inability to meet the agreed $200 per week payment. Secondly, the court had to address the wife's allegations of the husband's substantial, secreted income and his failure to provide full discovery, a principle underscored by the Full Court in *Oriolo v Oriolo*. Thirdly, the court was tasked with considering the welfare of the child, with the Independent Children's Lawyer recommending the maintenance of the status quo, a position the wife indicated she would accept. Finally, the court had to examine the wife's application to set aside the property consent orders, based on her assertions of the husband's involvement in overseas financial arrangements and offshore accounts for tax minimisation.

Guest J reasoned that the wife's pursuit of discovery, which had already incurred substantial costs for both parties, warranted further investigation. The wife had presented information from a private inquiry agent detailing potential offshore financial dealings by the husband, including transfers to foreign banks, involvement in trusts, and overseas superannuation funds. While acknowledging the husband's submissions of near penury and limited assets, the court found the wife's allegations, if substantiated, could significantly impact the financial and property aspects of the case. The court also noted that the Independent Children's Lawyer's preliminary view on the welfare issue was unlikely to change, regardless of the financial discoveries.

Consequently, Guest J adjourned all extant applications for mention only on 13 June 2007, reserving the costs of the day for all parties. The court certified that the proceedings reasonably required the attendance of counsel and ordered the transcription of the ex tempore judgment. This adjournment was granted to allow the wife further opportunity to investigate the financial matters raised by the private inquiry agent, with the understanding that this was her last opportunity to do so. The court also indicated it would maintain management of the matter to avoid it being lost in the system and to ensure fair progression for the parties.