Welch & Abney (No 2)

In *Welch & Abney (No 2)*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between a wife and husband concerning property settlement. The wife sought to adduce evidence to support a *Kennon* argument, which the husband objected to. The court also had to determine the division of the parties' assets and superannuation interests, considering their financial and non-financial contributions during and after their 16-year cohabitation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the wife's evidence was admissible to support a *Kennon* claim, and how the parties' property and superannuation interests should be divided. The court was required to assess whether the case fell within the exceptional circumstances identified by the Full Court for a *Kennon* argument and to make a just and equitable adjustment of the parties' property interests.

Austin J found that the wife's evidence, even at its highest, could not support a *Kennon* submission, rendering its reception futile. Regarding property settlement, the court determined that while both parties had spent significant sums post-separation, their expenditures were not profligate or unreasonable. A global assessment of contributions was preferred, acknowledging the husband's greater initial capital contribution. However, the court found the parties' financial and non-financial contributions during cohabitation to be relatively equal, with the wife's contributions being greater after separation, particularly in her care of the children. Consequently, the wife was awarded 60 per cent of the parties' net assets and superannuation interests, with the husband receiving 40 per cent. This adjustment was influenced by the husband's prospective common law claim and the wife's continuing exclusive responsibility for the youngest child.