ZACCARDI & ZACCARDI

In the matter of *Zaccardi & Zaccardi*, Rees J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered parenting, property, and procedural applications. The dispute involved a wife and child who were at serious risk of harm from the husband, who had a history of family violence and threats to kill. The wife’s location was undisclosed, and the husband had not seen the child since early 2019. The wife also sought to restrain the husband’s solicitors from acting for him.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders given the significant risk of harm to the wife and child, the husband's history of violence, and the wife's status as the child's primary attachment figure. Additionally, the court had to address the division of property, specifically concerning a substantial sum of money transferred by the husband to a friend that could not be located, and the husband's significantly greater initial financial contributions. Finally, the court considered whether the husband's solicitors should be restrained from continuing their representation due to potential prejudice to the administration of justice.

Regarding parenting, the court found that supervised time would not ameliorate the risk to the child and ordered that the wife have sole parental responsibility, that the child live with the wife, and that the child have no contact with the husband. The wife was permitted to remove the child from Australia without the husband's consent, and the husband was restrained from removing the child from Australia. The court also made extensive injunctive orders for the personal protection of the wife, including restraining her from assault, harassment, and approaching within 50 metres of her. In relation to property, the court did not accept that the husband's transferred funds were lost and included them in the property pool. The husband's initial contributions were assessed at 80% and the wife's at 20%, with a further 10% adjustment to the wife for section 75(2) factors. The court ordered the distribution of funds from a controlled monies account and a superannuation interest to the wife, and a lump sum payment from the husband to the wife. The application to restrain the husband's solicitors was dismissed due to the urgency of the proceedings and the potential prejudice to the administration of justice if new representation were required.