Adin & Olivija (No 2) [2025] – Spousal Maintenance & Division of Assets – Family Law – Mr Anthony Strik
In Adin & Olivija (No 2) [2025], Mr Strik acted as Counsel for the Respondent/wife, Ms Olivija, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The matter was heard before Judge Altobelli between 29 September 2025 and 2 October 2025, and His Honour’s judgment was delivered on 4 December 2025.
Background
The Applicant and Respondent had separated; despite consenting to parenting orders in 2025, the financial proceedings went to a contested hearing due to the competing proposals.
Legal Issues
Husband’s Proposal
In relation to the parties’ marital property, the husband proposed a distribution of 53/47, in favour of the wife. He opposed any spousal maintenance.
He also contended that his tax liabilities with the ATO should be included on the balance sheet. He distinguished his case from that of Murray v Murray (2020) (where tax debt was excluded) because in his case, there was evidence of the type of tax and the financial years to which it related, unlike Murray.
Wife’s Proposal
In relation to the parties’ marital property, the wife proposed a distribution of 61/39, in her favour. She requested spousal maintenance of $1,500/week for 5 years.
The wife contested the full inclusion of the husband’s tax liabilities on the balance sheet on the basis that the husband had chosen to pay his legal fees instead of paying his tax. If the husband had chosen to pay his tax and his legal fees were remaining, the wife’s counsel argued that the financial outcome would impact the wife differently.
Legal Reasoning
Amended s 79 of the Act
As the proceedings began after 10 June 2025, s 79 of the Act was amended. Accordingly, as per Austin J in Stubbs & Stubbs (No 3) [2025], the Court must first determine the property interests and liabilities of the parties (s 79(3)(a)) and consider whether it is just and equitable to make any property adjustment order (s 79(2)).
If a property adjustment order is equitable and just, the Court must decide on an order, taking into account the parties’ respective contributions (s 79(3)(b)(i) and s 79(4)) and their current and future circumstances (s 79(3)(b)(ii) and s 79(5)).
Credit Findings
As there were disputed facts in the respective testimonies of the husband and wife, the Court determined the credit of each party.
His Honour stated that there were concerns regarding the Husband’s credit, especially regarding his cross-examination. The various misrepresentations he made to financial institutions (including the value of his car and ownership of the former matrimonial home) were significant. Whilst the husband denied all of the wife’s allegations of family violence against him, the Court found it more likely than not that he committed an act of violence against her on one occasion, bearing on his overall credibility.
Regarding the wife’s credit, Altobelli J noted that Ms Olivija had been self-represented for a substantial period of time. Whilst the husband submitted that the wife was “evasive when answering questions” this finding was not accepted – rather, the wife’s indirectness was interpreted as an inability to answer the questions due to their confusing framing.
The husband also contended that the wife was being dishonest about her relationship with Mr Q; though the husband stated this relationship was romantic, Ms Olivija stated it was a friendship. Upon examining the evidence (including the wife putting Mr Q as an emergency contact on forms), the Court did not find evidence that the wife was in a romantic relationship with Mr Q. Additionally, there was no evidence that Mr Q is an undisclosed financial resource to the wife as he is not on affidavit, there is no evidence as to his value as a financial resource, and there is no evidence he is willing to provide financial assistance in the future.
The husband also disputed certain elements of the wife’s submissions, including the truthfulness of her evidence about her loan from Mr Q, her current tenancy and the reduction of her bank funds. However, based largely on the following issues regarding the parties’ credit and the husband’s inability to fulfil his onus of proof, the Court favoured the evidence of the wife.
Tax Liability on Balance Sheet
The Court favoured the husband’s submissions regarding the husband’s tax liability on the balance sheet. This was further reinforced by the fact that the wife’s counsel did not suggest an alternate figure by which to substitute the full value of ATO liability.
Other Issues
His Honour also determined that:
- The parties’ respective loans will not appear on the balance sheet (as agreed);
- The wife’s valuation of the CBA account and N Bank Account be accepted (as opposed to the husband’s) as they were provided on oath; and
- The husband’s paid legal fees ought not to be included as a “financial resource” as the wife’s balance sheet indicated.
Considerations
Judge Altobelli assessed the various considerations under s 79(5) of the Act.
Current & Future Circumstances (s 75(5)(a))
Regarding the wife’s allegations of family violence, His Honour highlighted evidence of a message conversation between the wife and her sister, and an email from the wife’s sister to the NSW Police that corroborates the content of the message. Additionally, the husband’s counsel did not cross-examine the wife on this issue. Based on the evidence, the Court found that some act of family violence occurred in June 2014, and (though the details are unknown), it likely resembled the wife’s account over the husband’s.
However, s 79(5)(a) of the Act requires the family violence to affect the current or future circumstances of the wife, and this could not be proven in these circumstances.
Age & State of Health (s 79(5)(b)
The wife argued that her poor mental health, as a result of the marriage and family violence, ought to be taken into account. Though she conceded in cross-examination that her mental health issues would not prevent her obtaining paid employment, it was still considered a relevant consideration.
Income, Property and Financial Resources of each of the Parties (s 79(5)(c)
His Honour noted the “disparity” between the husband and wife’s earning capacities; the husband works in the medical field and is a business owner whilst the wife is unemployed and currently undergoing studies. The Court considered it significant that the husband’s earning capacity is 6x that of the wife.
Liabilities Incurred by the Parties (s 79(5)(e))
The husband contended the wife’s submissions regarding the treatment of his ATO liability (as discussed above). He stated that the non-payment of his tax was due to a deficit budget as opposed to the prioritisation of legal fees, evident as he largely paid his legal fees through loans. Whilst the full ATO debt was included on the balance sheet, there were adjustments to ensure fairness to the wife.
Care of a Child (s 79(5)(f))
The Court highlighted that the child will live with the wife, however, she did not have a home. His Honour considered her ability to purchase a home that is close to the child’s school and husband’s house as a relevant consideration.
Spousal Maintenance
The Court acknowledged that the wife could not adequately support herself. Applying the four-step criteria in Saxena v Saxena (2006), consideration was given to whether:
- The wife can adequately support herself;
- If not, what are her reasonable needs?;
- What capacity does the husband have to meet those needs?; and
- What order is reasonable according to s 75(2) of the Act?
His Honour considered numerous factors including:
- The wife’s last role in paid employment being in the husband’s business (where her role was terminated in May 2022);
- The wife’s justification for not working since (being, her care for her child and preparing for litigation);
- Her reasonable weekly expenditure of $5,279;
- The cost of her future weekly mortgage payments; and
- The husband’s financial capacity to pay the wife spousal maintenance.
Outcome
The Court ordered that the matrimonial property be split 60/40 in favour of the wife. Altobelli J also ordered Ms Olivija to receive $1,500/week of spousal maintenance for a period of 2 years.
Analysis
In a family law matter that places great emphasis on the truthfulness of testimony provided, it is important to ensure all representations are substantiated by facts and given under oath. This case also demonstrates how s 79(5) amendments to the Act operate in litigation.
Anthony Strik accepts briefs in family law matters. If you require experienced legal representation in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, please contact his chambers.