BACKFORD & BANKS

This matter concerned a property settlement dispute between parties who had been in a de facto relationship. The court was required to determine the appropriate division of a modest asset pool, which included significant superannuation interests, where there was a substantial disparity between the parties' respective interests in property and superannuation. The court also confirmed its jurisdiction, as the relationship breakdown occurred after 1 March 2009.

The primary legal issues before the court were how to approach the division of assets and superannuation in circumstances of disparate initial contributions, the wife's role as the primary homemaker and carer, and the overall objective of achieving a just and equitable outcome for both parties. The court considered whether a global approach to the property settlement was appropriate, and how superannuation interests should be treated, including the notion of treating them as property for the purposes of division.

Austin J applied a global approach to the property settlement, treating the parties' superannuation interests notionally as property. The court found that it would not be a just and equitable result for the parties to retain their existing legal and equitable interests in the assets and superannuation. The court determined that the applicant was entitled to 20 per cent of the total asset and superannuation pool, while the respondent was entitled to the remaining 80 per cent.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $178,997 within eight weeks, in consideration of which the respondent would become the sole owner of the parties' jointly held property. Provisions were made for the sale of the property by public auction if the payment was not made. The applicant was declared the sole owner of his shareholding in Backford Pty Ltd, and the respondent the sole owner of her shareholding in C Pty Ltd. Each party was to retain other assets in their possession and be solely liable for associated debts. The Registrar of the Family Court was empowered to execute documents if a party failed to do so. Costs were reserved for 28 days, and all outstanding applications were dismissed.