Beware: No Disclosure = No property settlement

In Trang & Kingsley [2017] FamCAFC 120 the Court held that it was not just & equitable to alter the property interests of the husband in favour of the wife due to a lack of full & frank disclosure by the wife.

In this case, the Wife failed to account for her use of $250,000 both before and after separation. The court was further concerned that the Wife may not have disclosed the identity and value of property interests she may have had overseas.

Due to the Wife’s failure to make full & frank disclosure, the Trial Judge was unable to identify and value the property interests of the wife including her interests in real property in country A, save for her super.

The court held that it was not just & equitable to alter the property interests of the husband in favour of the wife.

Central to the Trial Judge’s determination not to alter the property interests of the husband in favour of the wife, were findings made as to the Wife’s failure to make full and frank disclosure of her financial circumstances & significant adverse credit findings concerning the wife & her evidence.

The wife appealed.

The findings of credit in relation to the wife & her failure to make full and frank disclosure were not challenged on appeal.

One of the issues raised by the Wife on appeal was the fact that the Trial Judge had added back to the property pool the $250,000 spent by the wife & contemporaneously made a further adjustment in favour of the husband under s75(2), taking into account the uncertainty of the assets owned by the Wife.

The wife on appeal alleged the Judge erred in his treatment of the issue concerning the wife’s use of $250,000 in assessing the parties contributions & s75(2) factors.

The Full Court held there was no error in the treatment of the $250,000 both under s79(4) and s75(2). The appeal was dismissed with costs.