What Happens When a Party in a Divorce Fails to Disclose Assets and Claims the Matrimonial Home is Held on Trust?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Hendrix & Haroldson [2025] FedCFamC1F 269, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)
• Presiding Judge: The Honourable Justice Curran
• Cause of Action: Application for Property Settlement and Parenting Orders
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2025

Core Keywords

• Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
• Keyword 2: Property Settlement
• Keyword 3: Family Trust
• Keyword 4: Non-Disclosure of Assets
• Keyword 5: Parenting Orders
• Keyword 6: Section 79 Family Law Act

Background

This case concerns the competing property and parenting applications between a husband and wife following the breakdown of their relationship. The parties, both of whom were self-represented at the final hearing and for whom English is a second language, presented the Court with a complex and often contradictory set of facts.

The central asset in dispute was the former matrimonial home, which the husband had purchased and substantially constructed prior to the relationship. The husband’s primary argument was that this property was held in a family trust for the benefit of his father and the parties’ child, and therefore should not be included in the asset pool available for division. This claim was complicated by allegations of significant and ongoing non-disclosure of financial information by the husband, which obscured the true nature of the parties’ financial circumstances since their separation.

In parallel, the parties were in dispute over the parenting arrangements for their 12-year-old son, specifically concerning the amount of time the child should spend with each parent during school terms and holidays.

Core Disputes and Claims

The Court was required to determine a number of critical issues:

1. The Status of the Matrimonial Home: Was the property located at E Street, Suburb F, an asset of the relationship to be divided between the parties, or was it legitimately held on trust and therefore excluded from the asset pool?
2. Identification of the Asset Pool: What were the true assets, liabilities, and financial resources of the parties, particularly in light of the husband’s alleged failure to make full and frank financial disclosure?
3. Just and Equitable Division: Having identified the asset pool, what division of property would be just and equitable, taking into account the parties’ respective financial and non-financial contributions, as well as their future needs?
4. Parenting Arrangements: What parenting orders regarding living arrangements and time spent with each parent would be in the best interests of the child?

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

My relationship with the husband began before I moved to Australia permanently. We married in 2011, and I settled here in mid-2012, with our son being born later that year. From the outset, the financial aspects of our life were controlled entirely by the husband. He was a qualified accountant and managed all the bank accounts, business entities, and what he referred to as the ‘Hendrix Family Trust’.

Shortly after our marriage, he had me sign a Binding Financial Agreement. It was a complex document, translated into my native language, but I did not truly understand its implications. It listed the E Street property as his asset, along with various family loans he said he had. I also declared my own modest assets, including some inherited property overseas and my savings. I gave him US$26,000 of my savings to help us get established in Australia, which he used for various business purposes.

I was made a director of one of his companies, B Pty Ltd, but it was in name only. I never saw any documents, attended any meetings, or received any information about its operations. Our life was lived in the E Street property, which was also a source of rental income from multiple tenants living in converted studios downstairs.

The relationship became strained. The husband’s behaviour changed, and there were arguments. He even became physically aggressive towards our son on one occasion in 2019, which led to police involvement and an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. My own frustration boiled over in 2023 when, after our son went missing after school, I found him at the father’s home and reacted angrily, hitting him with a water bottle. The husband, who was overseas, took our son to the police upon his return, and I was charged.

From late 2014, the dynamic shifted completely. Although we were living under the same roof, the husband began treating me as a tenant. He had me sign a residential tenancy agreement to rent a room in the house. When I fell behind on payments, he issued me with default notices and eventually commenced proceedings against me in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to recover the alleged rental arrears. It was at this point, in 2018, that I knew our marriage was well and truly over. Despite this, he continued to control all the financial information, leaving me in the dark about the true state of our assets and the income he was generating from the property we once shared as a family home.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Husband’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• The Hendrix Family Trust: The husband produced two deeds: a 2002 trust deed establishing the Trust and a 2008 ‘Deed Variation’ which he claimed gifted the E Street property into the trust.
• Taxation and Centrelink Records: He relied on ATO records from 2019 onwards which listed the E Street property as an asset of the Trust, and a 2018 Centrelink form where he declared the property was held by the Trust.
• Liabilities to Family: He claimed significant loans were owed to his father, sister, and brother-in-law, predating and during the relationship. He produced a 2011 loan agreement with his father as evidence.
• Short Relationship: He argued the relationship only lasted 20 months (from cohabitation in mid-2012 to an incident in March 2014) and therefore the wife’s contributions were minimal.

Wife’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Binding Financial Agreement (BFA): Although set aside by consent, the wife relied on the 2011 BFA which listed the E Street property as the husband’s personal asset, with no mention of it being held in a trust.
• Husband’s Inconsistent Conduct: She pointed to the 2011 loan agreement where the husband offered the E Street property as personal collateral for a loan from his father, an act inconsistent with the property being held in a trust since 2008.
• Financial and Non-Financial Contributions: The wife provided evidence of her initial financial contribution of US$26,000 and her extensive non-financial contributions as a homemaker, primary caregiver to their infant child, and assisting with renovations and managing the tenancies at the property.
• Long Relationship: She contended the relationship lasted seven years (from marriage in 2011 to the NCAT proceedings in 2018), arguing that they continued to live as a couple, travel together, and be perceived as such by friends.

Core Dispute Points

1. The Trust’s Authenticity: Was the 2008 Deed Variation a legitimate instrument that transferred the property, or was the Trust structure a device used by the husband to shield his primary asset from the property settlement? The husband’s own actions, such as using the property as collateral for a personal loan in 2011, directly contradicted his claim.
2. The Husband’s Non-Disclosure: The wife alleged the husband deliberately withheld financial records for his companies, the Trust, and numerous bank accounts, making it impossible to ascertain the true value of the asset pool or trace the income generated since separation. The husband admitted to not providing disclosure since June 2023, claiming he feared the wife would use the information for an “improper purpose”.
3. The Nature of Family “Loans”: Were the substantial sums from the husband’s family genuine, legally enforceable debts that should be deducted from the asset pool, or were they gifts or unenforceable arrangements? The husband failed to call his father, sister, or brother-in-law to give evidence about these alleged loans.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The affidavits of the parties painted two irreconcilable realities. The husband’s affidavit constructed a narrative where he was merely a trustee, burdened with significant family debts and managing a property for the benefit of his father and son. He minimised the length of the relationship and characterised the wife’s role as that of a tenant, asserting she made no meaningful contributions.

Conversely, the wife’s affidavit detailed her journey to Australia to build a life with the husband, her financial and non-financial contributions to the household, and her role as the primary caregiver to their child, especially while the husband was focused on his studies and business ventures. She portrayed a relationship that, while fraught with conflict, continued until the husband initiated legal action against her as if she were a mere tenant. The stark contrast in these sworn statements placed the onus squarely on the Court to determine credibility by testing the evidence against contemporaneous documents and independent witness testimony.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the complexity of the case necessitated several key procedural orders. The Court had ordered the appointment of a Single Expert Accountant to value the husband’s various business entities and the Trust. However, this process was ultimately abandoned by the wife, who asserted that the husband’s failure to provide the necessary financial records made a proper valuation impossible.

Furthermore, noting the dispute over the ownership and control of the E Street property, the Court had issued an injunction restraining the husband from selling, transferring, or otherwise encumbering the property pending the final outcome of the proceedings. These pre-trial orders underscored the Court’s early recognition of the significant issues of non-disclosure and the need to preserve the primary asset.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The trial was conducted with both parties representing themselves, a scenario that highlighted their deep-seated animosity and the challenge of navigating complex legal arguments without professional guidance.

The husband’s case began to unravel under the weight of his own inconsistencies and procedural failures. Despite repeated directions from the Judge, he failed to produce a coherent bundle of documents from the 2,200 pages he had disclosed to the wife just days before the trial. His excuse for years of non-disclosure—that he feared the wife would use the information for an “improper purpose”—was found to be unconvincing.

The most critical moment came with his failure to call his father, sister, or brother-in-law to give evidence about the substantial loans he claimed were owed to them. The husband claimed his father was too unwell to testify but provided no medical evidence to support this. This failure was fatal to his credibility, leading the Court to draw a powerful adverse inference. As Her Honour noted, this triggered the well-established principle from Jones v Dunkel, where the failure of a party to call a witness they would be expected to call leads to the inference that the witness’s evidence would not have assisted their case. The Court held:

The failure to call evidence from the husband’s father is a significant deficit in the husband’s evidence. I make the Jones v Dunkel inference that his evidence would not have assisted the husband’s case.

The wife, while also self-represented, presented as a more credible witness. Her evidence regarding her contributions was corroborated by her friend, Ms U, and even partially by the husband’s own long-term tenant, Mr S. While she admitted to an instance of poor behaviour (the “water bottle incident”), her overall narrative was more consistent and aligned with the available independent evidence, such as the BFA and the timing of her application for single parenting payments.

Ultimately, the husband’s case failed not on a single point, but on the cumulative weight of his contradictory actions, his failure to provide evidence to support his claims, and his flagrant disregard for his duty of disclosure.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court delivered a judgment that sought to bring finality to both the parenting and property disputes.

Parenting Orders:
* The parties are to have shared decision-making responsibility for the child, with the father having sole responsibility for education and the mother for health, reflecting their earlier consent.
* The child is to live with both parents in an equal time arrangement, rotating on a fortnightly basis during the school term.
* School holidays are to be shared equally.
* The Independent Children’s Lawyer was ordered to explain the final orders to the child.

Property Orders:
* The husband is to pay the wife a lump sum of $307,618 within 45 days.
* In default of this payment, the E Street property is to be sold, with the net proceeds to be divided 60 per cent to the husband and 40 per cent to the wife after payment of all costs and liabilities.
* The husband is to indemnify the wife in relation to any and all liabilities arising from his business entities, including any potential taxation debts.
* Each party is to be solely responsible for their own legal fees and personal debts, including their respective higher education loans.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

The jurisprudential value of this judgment lies in its clear demonstration of how the Court handles cases plagued by “egregious non-disclosure”. It serves as a powerful reminder that a party who attempts to frustrate the judicial process by hiding assets or providing incomplete information will not be rewarded. The Court, deprived of a clear financial picture, is entitled to draw adverse inferences and make robust orders under Section 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to achieve a just and equitable outcome. This case underscores that a lack of transparency is not a shield but a significant forensic liability.

Judgment Points

A key aspect of the judgment was the Court’s pragmatic use of historical documents. The Binding Financial Agreement (BFA), though set aside, was treated as a reliable contemporaneous record of the parties’ assets and liabilities at the start of the relationship. This demonstrates that even legally unenforceable documents can carry significant evidentiary weight in establishing a party’s state of mind and intentions at a particular point in time. The Judge skillfully contrasted the husband’s declarations in the BFA with his later claims about the Trust, exposing a fundamental inconsistency that undermined his entire case.

Legal Basis

The judgment was anchored in several key statutory provisions:
* Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): This section empowers the Court to alter the property interests of the parties. The Court meticulously followed the four-step process of identifying the asset pool, assessing contributions, considering future needs, and ensuring a just and equitable outcome.
* Section 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): This “catch-all” provision allows the Court to consider “any other fact or circumstance which the justice of the case requires to be taken into account”. Her Honour explicitly used this section to make a significant adjustment in the wife’s favour to counteract the prejudice she suffered due to the husband’s non-disclosure.
* Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): In determining the parenting orders, the Court prioritised the best interests of the child, balancing the child’s expressed views with the need to protect him from the ongoing parental conflict.

Evidence Chain

The husband’s credibility was systematically dismantled by a chain of his own contradictory evidence. The Court noted that his conduct post-2008 was entirely inconsistent with his claim that the property was held on trust. He had treated the property as his own when it suited him, for example, by offering it as security for a personal loan and by using the rental income for his personal legal fees.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Court’s frustration with the husband’s conduct and its impact on the proceedings was palpable. In addressing the husband’s failure to call his father as a witness to corroborate the alleged family loan, Her Honour made a critical finding based on a well-established legal principle:

The failure of a party bearing an onus of proof to call an available witness or available evidence which that party is plainly in a position to call, gives rise to an inference that the evidence may not have assisted that person’s case. This is an inference I make in accordance with the principles in both Jones v Dunkel, particularly as to the husband’s failure to call any evidence from his father, and in Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63, in his failure to produce and disclose any loan agreement or evidence as to the terms of the loan.

This statement was determinative. It demonstrates that in the absence of corroborating evidence that a party ought to be able to produce, the Court is entitled to infer the worst: that the evidence simply does not exist or would contradict the party’s claims.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The husband’s case failed fundamentally due to a catastrophic loss of credibility. His primary reasons for failure were:
1. Systematic Non-Disclosure: His deliberate and ongoing failure to provide financial documents created a situation where the Court could not trust his version of events and was entitled to draw adverse inferences.
2. Inconsistent Representations: He represented the property as his own in a BFA and a loan agreement but claimed it was a trust asset in court. He could not have it both ways.
3. Failure to Prove His Claims: The onus was on him to prove the existence of the trust and the family loans. He failed to produce the necessary evidence and did not call key witnesses, leaving his assertions as mere unsubstantiated claims.

Implications

1. The “Trust” Shield is Not Bulletproof: Simply placing assets into a trust structure does not automatically shield them from a family law property settlement, especially if a party continues to treat the assets as their own. The Court will look at the reality of control and benefit, not just the paperwork.
2. Disclosure is the Cornerstone of Justice: The duty to provide full and frank financial disclosure is absolute and ongoing. A failure to comply can lead to severe consequences, including the Court drawing adverse inferences and making significant financial adjustments against the non-disclosing party.
3. Your Actions Must Match Your Words: The Court will scrutinise your conduct throughout the relationship. If you have consistently treated an asset as your own (e.g., using it as security for personal loans), it will be difficult to later claim it belongs to someone else or a trust.
4. Do Not Lie to Government Agencies: Declarations made to bodies like Centrelink or the Australian Taxation Office are formal statements that can be used as powerful evidence in court. Inconsistencies between these declarations and your court claims will severely damage your credibility.
5. Evidence is Everything: A court case is won or lost on evidence. Unsubstantiated claims, no matter how strongly asserted, will fail against a consistent chain of documentary evidence and credible witness testimony. If you claim a debt is owed, you must be prepared to prove it.

Q&A Session

1. Why did the Court not believe the property was in a trust, even though there was a trust deed?
   The Court looked at the husband’s overall conduct. Although a 2008 deed variation existed, the husband’s actions before and after that date were inconsistent with him being a mere trustee. He listed the property as his personal asset in a 2011 BFA, used it as collateral for a personal loan in the same year, and used the rental income to pay his personal legal fees. His failure to provide complete financial records for the trust or call his co-trustee (his father) to give evidence also led the Court to conclude that he had not discharged his onus of proving the trust was legitimate.

2. The husband brought the main asset into the relationship. Why did the wife still receive a 40% share?
   While the husband’s initial contribution of the property was significant (assessed at 70% on a contributions basis), the Court made a further 10% adjustment to the wife under Section 75(2) factors. This adjustment was made primarily because of the husband’s “egregious non-disclosure”, which prejudiced the wife’s ability to understand the true financial picture and prolonged the litigation. The Court essentially penalised him for his conduct by increasing the wife’s share to ensure a just and equitable outcome.

3. What happens if the husband doesn’t pay the wife the $307,618 within 45 days?
   The Court included default orders. If the husband fails to pay the lump sum, the E Street property must be put up for sale. From the sale proceeds, all costs (mortgage, agent’s fees, outstanding rates) will be paid first. Then, the wife will receive her entitlement. The remaining balance will go to the husband. This ensures the wife receives her settlement even if the husband is unable or unwilling to refinance.

[Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines]

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: Family Law – Property Settlement & Parenting Dispute
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

• Core Test (Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 4AA):

  • Duration of the relationship: The Court found the relationship lasted approximately 3.5 years, a shorter period than the wife contended but longer than the husband’s claim. This duration was still sufficient to warrant a property adjustment.
  • Nature and extent of common residence: The parties cohabited in the E Street property from mid-2012 until their separation under one roof in late 2014.
  • Whether a sexual relationship exists: This existed until at least 2014.
  • Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: The parties had a degree of financial interdependence, with the wife contributing her savings and the husband managing the household finances and rental income.
  • Ownership, use and acquisition of property: The husband owned the primary property prior to the relationship, but the wife contributed to its maintenance and the associated business of renting out rooms.
  • Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: The parties married and had a child, demonstrating a clear mutual commitment for the duration of the relationship.
  • The care and support of children: They had one child together, to whom both contributed as parents.
  • Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: Friends and tenants observed them living as a couple until their separation under one roof.
• Property Settlement – The Four-Step Process:
  • Identification and Valuation: This was the most contentious step due to the husband’s non-disclosure and claims of a trust. The Court made findings on the evidence available, including the property at an agreed value of $1,600,000, and excluded liabilities that were not properly proven.
  • Assessment of Contributions: The Court assessed the husband’s initial financial contribution of the property as “overwhelmingly greater”. The wife’s contributions, while more modest, included her initial savings, homemaker contributions, and assistance with the property and its tenancies. This led to an initial assessment of 70% (husband) / 30% (wife).
  • Adjustment for Future Needs (s 75(2) Factors): The Court considered the age difference but found the most significant factor was the husband’s conduct under s 75(2)(o). His “egregious non-disclosure” warranted a 10% adjustment in the wife’s favour.
  • Just and Equitable: The Court determined that a final 60/40 split was just and equitable, balancing the husband’s significant initial contribution against his subsequent conduct which frustrated the proceedings and prejudiced the wife.
• Parenting Matters (Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975):
  • Primary Considerations: The Court balanced the benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect him from psychological harm arising from their conflict. An equal time arrangement was seen as the best way to foster relationships while mitigating the risk of the child being over-exposed to one parent’s negative influence.
  • Additional Considerations: The child’s views were given weight but were not determinative. The Court noted his desire for his parents to be “more peaceful” and his evolving preference for a more equal time arrangement, which was reflected in the final orders.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

If dealing with [Civil / Commercial / Property / Family / Estate] matters:
* Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
* Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation (e.g., “this property will be yours”)?
* Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise (e.g., renovating the property, resigning from a job)?
* Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from that promise?
* Result Reference: Even without a written contract, Equity may “estop” the other party from going back on their word.

• Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
  • Has the other party received a benefit (money or labor) at your expense? Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without payment?
  • Result Reference: The Court may order the restitution of the benefit or declare that you hold a beneficial interest in the asset via a Constructive Trust.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

• Regular Thresholds:
  • For property settlement claims to be made for de facto relationships, parties generally must have been in the relationship for at least 2 years.
• Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
  • Family Law: Less than 2 years of cohabitation? → An exemption may be available pursuant to Section 90SB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) if there is a child of the relationship or if the applicant has made substantial contributions and a failure to make the order would result in serious injustice. In this case, as the parties were married and had a child, the 2-year threshold for de facto relationships was not a barrier.
• Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

• Citation Angle:

  • It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving non-disclosure, the treatment of alleged family loans, and the application of s 75(2)(o) to adjust property entitlements based on litigation conduct.
• Citation Method:
  • As Positive Support: When your matter involves a party who has failed to provide full and frank disclosure, frustrating the valuation process or obscuring the true asset pool, citing Hendrix & Haroldson can strengthen an argument for drawing an adverse inference and seeking a significant s 75(2)(o) adjustment.
  • As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case to argue for a large adjustment due to non-disclosure, you should emphasize that in Hendrix & Haroldson, the non-disclosure was “egregious”, systematic, and occurred despite multiple court orders and warnings. Distinguish your client’s conduct by highlighting any compliance or reasonable explanations for delays.
• Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Applicant / Respondent or Appellant / Respondent.

Conclusion

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Hendrix & Haroldson), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.