Overseas assets in divorce settlement

[hassall]

Hello,

I appreciate there have been a few questions on this but:

My wonderful hairdresser ('X') has been taken on a long and drawn out separation over years with her ex-husband ('Y'). She finally got divorced this year and is now going through the settlement process. He had been refusing to disclose his financial information to inform the "ledger" in settlement.

Because this has been dragging on, the judge said they had to go to mediation and was not interested that 'X' knows that 'Y' has investment properties overseas (including syphoning money before they separated). The judge made this decision despite 'Y' refusing to disclose his financial circumstances. He said he was not interested in the overseas assets. This sounds incredibly unfair and contradictory to the Family Law Act?

X has a very junior legal aid lawyer who is doing her best, and X even had to fill in a grant application to legal aid to cover a subpoena for her ex husband's ('Y') financial information. While he finally seems to have included Australian assets, he has not included his overseas investment properties.

Y wants 60/40 (!!!) in his favour despite X bringing up the two daughters without child support (until this year) since they separated 4 years ago and having little super and just wants the house and buy him out and move on. But Y cannot afford much more than 73/23 without selling the house (which is set up as her business as well).

I suggest that if the overseas assets were included it may tip the balance so that even 70/30 would enable Y to JUST keep the house and pay X out.

Any suggestions? Is there someone out there that might offer an hour or so pro bono to work with the legal aid lawyer?

As always, forever grateful for this forum

 

[hassall]

Should have read "But X cannot afford much more than 73/23 without selling the house (which is set up as her business as well)".

 

[hassall]

And "I suggest that if the overseas assets were included it may tip the balance so that even 70/30 would enable X to JUST keep the house and pay Y out".

Sorry posted very early in the morning!!!

 

[SRL1]

Two things ...

1
s31(2) of the Family Law Act says "the jurisdiction of the Family Court may be exercised in relation to persons or things outside Australia and the Territories."
Note it says "may be" (not "must be") so it seems the judge would have the discretion to decide whether to include any overseas assets in the division or not, although you could probably appeal a judgement that disregard those assets on the grounds of precedents.

2
For the court to take overseas assets into consideration, their existence (and value) should be proved, either by both parties agreeing on that, or by way of documentary evidence (deeds, bank statements, valuations etc). It's not enough for one party to simply allege they exist without proof.

How does X know about the overseas properties and siphoning of money?