ZHOU & SUN

This matter concerned an application for property settlement between a husband and wife. The parties had spent the majority of their marriage living in different countries. The husband alleged that the wife had wasted proceeds from the sale of one of their properties, while each party asserted they had made greater contributions to the marriage. Orders had previously been made by the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, which allocated 80% of the parties' Singaporean assets to the husband and 20% to the wife.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' non-Singapore assets, considering their respective contributions and other relevant factors under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the wife's role as the sole carer and homemaker for the parties' son and her sole management of their Australian assets warranted an adjustment in her favour. The court also had to consider the husband's greater earning capacity and his significant financial resource represented by his interest in the Singapore assets.

The court found that the wife had made a greater contribution to the parties' non-Singapore assets due to her role as the sole carer and homemaker and her sole management of those assets. Consequently, an adjustment of 10% was made in her favour regarding these assets. Furthermore, the court determined that, in light of the husband's superior earning capacity and his substantial interest in the Singapore assets, a further adjustment of 20% in favour of the wife was warranted for section 75(2) factors concerning the non-Singapore assets.

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife a sum of $61,300 by 13 August 2017. Additionally, the husband was required to transfer his interest in a property located in Victoria to the wife at her expense and remove any caveat he had secured over that property at his sole expense. The orders also stipulated that, save for enforcing monies due, each party was solely entitled to their respective superannuation and other property, insurance policies remained with their named owner or beneficiary, each party was solely liable for liabilities encumbering their awarded property, and any joint tenancies were severed.