Consequences of Non-Disclosure

Consequences of Non-Disclosure: Court Awards Wife Entirety of Known Assets and Further Cash Sum Following Husband’s Breach of Disclosure Orders

In family law financial proceedings, parties have an obligation to provide each other with full and frank disclosure. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (the Rules), provides that parties are required to disclose all aspects of their financial circumstances, including direct and indirect interests, earnings, and financial resources (see Rule 6.06).

The recent case in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia of Zhuo & Ji (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 22 (Zhuo & Ji) illustrates the severe consequences of failing to meet these obligations. In Zhuo & Ji, the Court awarded the wife the entirety of the known asset pool, excluding superannuation, as well as an additional cash payment of over five million dollars. The husband’s egregious failure to disclose and breached Court orders were central to the Courts decision in making such an unfavourable judgement against the Husband.

The role and impact of non-disclosure on the Court’s judgement in Zhuo & Ji is discussed below.

The Legal Framework of Financial Disclosure

Disclosure in financial cases requires transparency regarding all assets, income, and financial resources, whether directly owned or controlled through corporate structures, trusts, or other entities. Additionally, parties must disclose at a minimum, any property disposals occurring within the year before or after separation that might affect financial claims. The purpose of these rules is to ensure a just and equitable division of assets, preventing any party from undermining the Court process through concealment.

The Husband’s Non-Disclosure and Court Findings 

In Zhuo & Ji, the Court determined that both parties had made equal financial and non-financial contributions to the matrimonial asset pool. However, the husband engaged in serious non-disclosure, asset dissipation and breached multiple Court orders. The Court considered that the husband’s conduct warranted a financial penalty against him and therefore justified such a substantial adjustment in favour of the wife. Among other things, the Court found that the husband:

1. failed to provide full financial disclosure as required under the Rules;
2. breached specific Court orders requiring financial disclosure and restraining asset dealings;
3. refused to cooperate with the appointed liquidator, displaying an obstructive and dismissive attitude; and
4. his conduct throughout the proceedings indicated he likely held or controlled undisclosed assets of significant value that he did not disclose.

Ultimately, the Court determined that expressing the wife’s entitlement as a percentage of the known asset pool was impractical. Instead, it accepted her claim to the entirety of the known assets and awarded her a further sum reflecting the likely undisclosed assets.

Court Orders and Implications

The Court made the following key orders:

1. The wife received the entirety of the known asset pool, excluding superannuation;
2. The husband was required to pay the wife arrears of spousal maintenance totalling $188,998.41 plus interest;
3. The husband’s property was to be sold, with the proceeds going to the wife; and
4. The husband was ordered to pay the wife a further $5,886,842, representing the estimated value of the husband’s undisclosed or dissipated assets.

Significance of the Judgment 

This decision reinforces the strict approach the Court takes toward non-disclosure in family law financial proceedings. The ruling highlights that:

1. Courts will not tolerate attempts to circumvent disclosure requirements;
2. Failure to comply with Court orders can lead to severe financial penalties; and
3. Non-disclosure can justify an order beyond the known assets, recognising the likely existence of hidden financial resources.

Strengthened Disclosure Obligations Under the Amendment Act

The case of Zhuo & Ji is particularly significant in light of the legislative amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) coming into effect in June of 2025. The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) (the Amendment Act) will shift the duty of disclosure in financial and property matters from the Rules into the Act. Meaning that parties to family law financial proceedings are now legally required to provide all relevant financial information and documents to each other and the Court. This duty begins when a party prepares to initiate or engage in property or financial settlement discussions, and continues throughout the case/court proceedings until its resolution.

Additionally, the Amendment Act imposes new obligations on legal practitioners and family dispute resolution practitioners to ensure parties are aware of their disclosure responsibilities.

They must inform clients about:

1. The duty of disclosure; and
2. The potential consequences of failing to comply with the duty.

Failure to comply with disclosure obligations can lead to serious consequences, including:

1. Punishment for contempt of Court, which may result in fines or imprisonment;
2. Costs orders against the non-compliant party; and
3. The Court considering the non-compliance when making property settlement orders.

Conclusion

The judgment in Zhuo & Ji serves as a stark warning that non-disclosure in family law proceedings carries significant repercussions for the non-disclosing party. The Court’s decision to award the wife the entirety of the known asset pool, plus an additional cash payment for likely undisclosed assets, highlights the fundamental importance of transparency in financial matters. As legislative changes further reinforce disclosure obligations, compliance will remain crucial for parties navigating financial disputes in their family law matters.

If you need assistance with any of the above, please don’t hesitate to give our office a call on 07 5526 0167 to speak with one of our highly qualified and experienced family lawyers or email [email protected].