YAMADA & BERNARD

In a family law proceeding before Hogan J, the applicant sought final property orders against the respondent. The dispute concerned the division of assets following a long-term relationship between the parties, who had two adult children. The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings, having left the jurisdiction despite being afforded ample opportunity to engage.

The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the division of property, including the applicant's contributions to the relationship and the parties' assets. A key issue was whether legal professional privilege attached to certain communications, given the respondent's actions in placing property beyond the applicant's reach. The court also considered the applicant's conduct in withdrawing funds from a joint account and selling a motor vehicle after separation.

Hogan J found that privilege did not attach to the communications in question, as they were made for the purpose of placing property beyond the applicant's reach, and no public interest was served by allowing privilege to attach. The court accepted the applicant's explanation for withdrawing $18,000 from a joint account, finding it was for her own support in circumstances where the respondent had withdrawn significant funds and ceased financial support. Similarly, the court accepted the applicant's sale of a motor vehicle for $200 was a disposition of an asset after separation, but the sum received was so small that it was just and appropriate to take it into account during consideration of the relevant section 90SF(3) matters, declining to notionally add it back. The court also noted the parties' history of property acquisition and business operation, including properties and a store on Island F, and various Australian properties purchased in the respondent's sole name.

The court made final orders pursuant to s 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The applicant retained certain real property, bank accounts, and personal effects. The respondent retained his bank accounts, personal effects, a motor vehicle, two transport businesses and associated licenses in Island F, and any other interest in property in Island F. The respondent was ordered to transfer his interest in a Queensland property to the applicant within thirty days and to pay the applicant $406,924.64 within the same period. An injunction was issued restraining the respondent from dealing with his Australian assets until this payment was made. Each party was to retain other property in their possession or control. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis, fixed at $55,324.34, and directed that certain documents be forwarded to professional bodies for their consideration.