MikeLigalig.com

By the time Ms Bodilly took court action against him, Mr Hand not only had a new job paying $1.7 million a year, but an annual taxable income of more than $5 million.

In a judgment published this month, Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks and Justices Judith Ryan and Garry Watts have ruled there is no reason why Mr Hand should not pay $120,000 to upgrade Ms Bodilly's home.

"The sum is primarily related to renovation costs that the wife needed to her home because she is wheelchair-bound," they say.

"The husband is wealthy and it took him a surprisingly long time to meet his obligation to fully disclose his financial circumstances."

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=73787.0

In April 2010, Mr Hand took on a new role that paid $1.7 million a year - by 2011, his total taxable income was $5.8 million.

"Ms Bodilly's medical condition progressively deteriorated (and) since March 2007, she has been unable to work," the judgment says.

"By November 2009 she was housebound."

The judgment says Mr Hand refused to disclose his financial situation to Ms Bodilly and, seeking assistance with her growing disability, she took Family Court action.

Ms Bodilly asked the court to award her a $120,000 lump sum to cover living expenses and the cost of making the former couple's home wheelchair-accessible.

"As I am less steady, I am no longer able to access the backyard in case I fall," she told the court.

"I am eager to get out into the backyard again, especially when the weather improves."

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=73787.0

TIMELINE

1983: Mr Hand and Ms Bodilly - who has multiple sclerosis - marry.

1998: The couple separates.

December 2000: In a property settlement, agreed between the former couple, Ms Bodilly keeps their combined assets while Mr Hand retains his superannuation and agrees to pay her $500 a week in maintenance.

March 2007: Ms Bodilly's condition worsens, causing her to give up her $35,000-a-year part-time job as a health care professional.

March 2009: Mr Hand loses his job and receives a $5 million redundancy payment and $4.7 million in superannuation.

February 2010: Now unemployed, Mr Hand asks the Family Court to suspend operation of the 2000 agreement - while buying new properties for himself in his second wife's name.

April 2010: Mr Hand finds a new job paying $1.7 million per year plus shares.

June 2012: Ms Bodilly asks the court to order Mr Hand pay $120,000 to renovate their former home so it is wheelchair accessible.

July 2012: The court hears Mr Hand's annual income is $5.8 million.

August 2012: The court rules in Ms Bodilly's favour. Mr Hand lodges an appeal, claiming she only needs $45,000 for the renovations.

July 2013: The Family Court publishes a judgment dismissing Mr Hand's appeal.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=73787.0