WIDMANN & WIDMANN

In the Family Court of Australia, Stevenson J considered a property dispute between a husband and wife who had been in a relationship for approximately 22 years and had three children. The wife sought an order for 80 per cent of the husband's one-third share of the net proceeds from a particular property. Conversely, the husband sought the dismissal of the wife's application, arguing that there was no basis for altering his legal interest in assets he acquired from his late father's inheritance, which he received approximately six years after the parties' separation.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the husband's inheritance, received post-separation, should be included in the asset pool for division, and if so, how it should be treated in determining a just and equitable distribution of the parties' property. The court was also required to consider the parties' contributions as at the date of separation and whether the adoption of a two-pool approach would lead to a fair outcome. Furthermore, the court needed to assess if any adjustments were warranted under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in favour of either party.

Stevenson J reasoned that while the parties' contributions were equal as at the date of separation, a two-pool approach, which would typically separate pre-separation assets from post-separation inheritances, would not achieve a just and equitable outcome in this instance. The court found that the net assets and superannuation should be divided 65 per cent in favour of the husband and 35 per cent in favour of the wife. No reason was found to make an adjustment in favour of either party based on the section 75(2) factors.

Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife a sum of $312,490 within three calendar months of the date of the orders. Otherwise, each party was declared solely entitled to all real property, chattels, and superannuation benefits then in their respective control.