Ashleigh & Ashleigh

In *Ashleigh & Ashleigh*, Judicial Registrar Loughnan of the Family Court of Australia at Sydney determined property settlement and child support matters between the husband and wife, who had been married for over 20 years and finally separated in August 2004. The wife sought orders for child support departure and payment by lump sum, as well as a division of the proceeds from the sale of the former matrimonial home. The husband sought a different division of the property proceeds and dismissal of the child support application.

The court was required to determine several issues, including the appropriate division of the parties' property, considering their financial and non-financial contributions, and various other factors under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess whether to treat superannuation as a separate pool of assets, whether certain past payments should be notionally added back to the asset pool, and whether the husband had engaged in "waste" of matrimonial assets. In relation to child support, the court had to decide whether to depart from administrative assessments for the period between July 2005 and September 2007, and if so, at what rate and whether the liability should be paid as a lump sum.

Judicial Registrar Loughnan applied a four-step approach to the property settlement, first identifying and valuing assets and liabilities, then assessing contributions to determine a percentage-based entitlement, followed by considering other relevant factors under section 79(4) and section 75(2) of the Act to make adjustments, and finally determining a just and equitable outcome. The court found the wife's overall contributions to be 55% and the husband's 45% for non-superannuation assets, and 60% for the wife and 40% for the husband regarding superannuation. Significant adjustments were made in favour of the wife due to the husband's "waste" of assets, estimated at around $100,000, and an imbalance in superannuation interests. For child support, the court found grounds for departure based on the husband's earning capacity and the son's school expenses, determining a monthly liability of $1,080. The court ordered that the husband's child support liability for the period from July 2005 to September 2007, totalling $28,620 (less payments already made), be paid from his share of the proceeds of the former matrimonial home before distribution to him.

The court ordered that 69% of the net proceeds from the sale of the former matrimonial home be paid to the wife by way of property settlement, and the remaining balance to the husband. The wife was also to receive a lump sum payment of $28,324.38 (less any agreed or found payments made by the husband) from the husband's share of the proceeds, to satisfy his child support liability for the period of 11 July 2005 to 30 September 2007. The court also made orders for the disbursement of other property and appointed the court's registrars to sign documents if either party failed to do so. Leave was granted to re-list the proceedings for matters relating to the form or implementation of the orders or legal costs.