Aquita & Hikal-Aquita

The parties to this proceeding were Mr Aquita (the applicant husband) and Ms Hikal-Aquita (the respondent wife). The dispute concerned the division of the parties' property and liabilities, and the husband also sought a child support departure order. The matter came before Hannam J of the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to adjust the parties' property interests and, if so, what adjustment should be made. Additionally, the court had to consider the husband's application for a child support departure order, which required evidence to satisfy the court that such an order was just and equitable.

Hannam J found that there was insufficient evidence to support many of the parties' contentions regarding their contributions. Based on the limited evidence available, the court assessed the wife's total financial and non-financial contributions, including those made after separation until the final hearing, as slightly greater than the husband's. This led to a small adjustment in her favour. Further, having regard to the factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the parties' respective earning capacities and the wife's greater responsibility for the future care of the children, an additional adjustment was made in her favour. The court concluded that a division of 55% of the net assets to the wife and 45% to the husband was just and equitable, with a small shortfall in the husband's entitlement being accounted for by the parties' agreement that the wife would retain the family home. The husband's application for a child support departure order was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.

The court ordered the transfer of the D Street property to the wife and the F Street property to the husband, with each party to refinance associated loans into their sole names. The balance of a joint NAB account was to be disbursed to the husband. The parties were to indemnify each other regarding liabilities associated with the properties they retained. The husband was to retain specific assets and be solely responsible for certain liabilities, while the wife was to retain other specified assets and be solely responsible for her liabilities. The husband's application for a child support departure order was dismissed. The Registrar of the Court was appointed pursuant to section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to execute necessary documents if either party refused or neglected to do so.