Husband locked out in $70m high society divorce battle

A high society couple are at war over their $70 million in assets, with a court denying the husband access to their bank accounts.

For a Sydney de facto couple worth almost $70 million, putting all of their cash assets in the wife’s name seemed like a clever idea – until they decided they hated each other.

The pair, who can’t legally be named, fought it out in the Family Court of Australia where the husband accused his ex of siphoning millions from their accounts as well as hiding money overseas.

The court heard the wife had the power to do this because most of the cash and liquid assets had been put in the wife’s name when the pair were on better terms.

The husband applied for an injunction against his wife from transferring any more of the money.

A Sydney de facto couple are before the Family Court of Australia, fighting over almost $70 million in cash and assets.

But his application was rejected by Justice Robert Harper, who told the court the evidence put forward by the husband was not “sufficient to justify the injunctive relief sought”.

The court heard that the pair had built an asset pool worth $51-$69 million, which now has to be split between the pair after their relationship broke down.

A man’s application for an injunction against his wife from transferring any more of their money has been rejected. Picture: iStock

The husband told the court – and the wife offered no dispute – that he should receive more than $20 million from their asset split.

One of those assets was their family home worth between $20 million and $23 million.

But the husband’s major problem was his access to cash in the short term, the court heard.

“...The only liquid interests of the parties are almost entirely in the control of the wife and total some $29.6 million,” Justice Harper told the court.

Some of these assets included $17 million in a bank account attached to a trust that is run by a company of which the wife is the sole director and shareholder.

The $29.6 million liquid assets of a fighting couple are almost entirely in the control of the wife.

And a further problem for the husband was what he claimed his wife was doing with those assets.

“He claims that those interests have been unilaterally reduced by the wife since late 2019 by the payment of some $7.56 million to persons or entities other than the parties,” Justice Harper said.

The husband claimed his ex breached a court order by not giving him seven days notice of any financial transaction.

He accused his ex of trying to take $9.6 million from the asset pool and opening an investment account in the US without his knowledge.

The wife denied his allegations and told the court she used $2 million to pay down the mortgage on their home and that there was “no demonstrated risk of dissipation to the existing property pool”.

The husband’s request to view the bank account containing the $17 million controlled by the wife was also rejected by the court after being contested by the wife.

The wife pointed out that she was already required to give her ex three-monthly updates relating to investments the pair held together.

In rejecting the husband’s injunction request, Justice Harper told the court: “I accept there is some evidence of possible dissipation, but it is disputed and has not been shown to be likely on the evidence or any greater than the possibility of dissipation inherent in all litigation.”

Despite their differences, the pair reached an out-of-court settlement on the eve of their trial.