Keep up to date with the latest news.

Family Court orders Husband to pay his second Wife $200 million in recent divorce case.

By Tiffany Yeo – Trainee Solicitor

The recent judgement in the marriage of Morris & Morris (No 7) [2024] FedCFamC1F highlights that even if you do not have children together, you still must pay your ex-partner money if you break up!


  • Husband and Wife were married for 22 years.
  • Husband is 70 years old; Wife is 66 years old.
  • There were no children of the relationship, however, the Wife had adult children from a previous relationship.
  • The asset pool consisted of companies and a trust, real estate, shares, insurance policies, bank accounts, vehicles, jewellery and household content, loans, credit cards and taxes.

The asset pool was valued at $740,976.274.00. Most of the asset pool, namely $603,304,020.00, was held by a Trust set up by the husband at the commencement of the marriage.

What did the parties want?

The Wife wanted the asset pool split equally.

The Husband offered her nothing.

In the end the Court awarded the Wife 27.6% (valued at $203,768,475) which amazingly was reduced in part because the Wife had been a chain smoker.

The Husband submitted that during the marriage the Wife had enjoyed spending time with her friends and enjoying first class international travel.

The Wife contended that the Husband’s submissions reflected “archaic misogyny”, “out of step with modern society’s expectations” and was “offensive”, “belittling” and “demeaning”.  

Was it just and equitable to adjust property?

The Court held that it was just and equitable to adjust the property given:

  1. the length of the marriage
  2. The “myriad” of contributions made by both parties including
    1. the Husband’s financial contributions; and
    1. the Wife’s contributions by giving up her employment to provide emotional and practical support to the husband by undertaking homemaker duties, supporting the Husband’s business ventures and always being available to him. Further, the marriage stopped the Wife from pursuing university education which impacted her earning capacity.
  3. The nature, terms and characteristics of the relationship.
  4. The assumptions held by the parties based on the continuation of the marriage and the break down of the marriage; and
  5. The wish for the Wife to keep certain properties.

Tiffany Yeo is in her final months of Supervised Legal Training under our firm Principal Stephen Lucas at Kingston Lawyers.

Leave a Comment