BALSAM & LACKNER
[2020] FCCA 1115
•15 May 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BALSAM & LACKNER | [2020] FCCA 1115 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting and property dispute – parenting issues resolved by consent on first day of trial – 8 year old autistic child to live with the mother and spend one night per fortnight with father – major disputes as to values of property items – major disputes arising from husband’s dissipation of funds – difficulties arising from the diminution of the pool by husband – court attempting to produce just and equitable outcome given the scope of the pool. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.90SF |
| Cases cited: Baglio v Baglio [2013] FamCA 105 Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52 Vass & Vass [2015] FamCAFC 51 |
| Applicant: | MS BALSAM |
| Respondent: | MR LACKNER |
| File Number: | DGC 2783 of 2019 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Burchardt |
| Hearing dates: | 15-16 April 2020, 20-21 April 2020 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 21 April 2020 |
| Delivered at: | Dandenong |
| Delivered on: | 15 May 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Byrnes |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Borchard & Moore |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Smallwood SC with Ms Wald |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Marsh & Maher Richmond Bennison |
| Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Ms Mansfield |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | White Cleland |
ORDERS
Amended pursuant to Rule 16.05(2)(e) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 on 29 May 2020
The husband retain to the exclusion of the Wife the following property:
(a)The real property situated at A Street, Town B;
(b)The add-back of $217,000 for legal expenses;
(c)His Motor Vehicle 1;
(d)His Motor Vehicle 2;
(e)His Motorcycle;
(f)His Bitcoin collection;
(g)His 30 percent interest in C Pty Ltd;
(h)His 100 percent interest in Lackner Enterprises Pty Ltd;
(i)His 100 percent interest in E Pty Ltd;
(j)All funds in his bank account;
(k)His unclaimed superannuation interests;
(l)All personal effects and furniture in the husband’s possession; and
(m)The chattels given to him by this judgment.
The wife retain to the exclusion of the husband the following property:
(a)The Country F property;
(b)The proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home of approximately $160,000 less any applicable Capital Gains Tax;
(c)Her Motor Vehicle 3;
(d)The funds available from the Bank G Offset Account ending ...0 less the $10,000 allocated for Ms H;
(e)The funds in the J Pty Ltd bank account;
(f)All funds held in her bank accounts;
(g)Her superannuation interests with Super Fund K; and
(h)All personal effects and furniture in the wife’s possession after compliance with these orders.
The Husband remain solely liable for and indemnify the Wife against all credit card debts, personal loans and any other debts in his sole name or jointly with another person.
The wife remain solely liable for and indemnify the husband against all credit card debts, personal loans and any other debts in her sole name or jointly with another person, including the $1,800 debt in Country F.
The following Orders are binding on Super Fund L as the Trustee (“the Trustee”) of the Super Fund L (“the Fund”):
(a)The base amount allocated to the Applicant out of the interest of the Respondent in the Fund is $21,566 (“the base amount”);
(b)Pursuant to section 90XT(1)(a) of the Act whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the interest of the Respondent in the Fund, the Applicant is entitled to be paid an amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth) using the base amount, and there be a corresponding reduction in entitlement of the Respondent;
(c)The operative time for this order is four (4) clear business days after the date of service of these Orders on the Trustee of the Fund;
(d)Until such time as the superannuation split to the Applicant pursuant to these Orders can be rolled over into a separate account to the Applicant:
(i)The Respondent will direct and authorise the Trustee of the Fund to communicate with the Applicant and/or any other person authorised by them in writing:
1. To answer any reasonable enquiries as may be made by her or on her behalf from time to time regarding her entitlement in the Fund; and
2. To give the Applicant and/or her authorised representative a copy of any notice of any application or request by the Respondent which seeks release of entitlements in the Fund in so far as that release may affect the Applicant’s entitlement in the Fund pursuant to these Orders; and
ii. The Respondent, his servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained from doing any act or thing which would prevent the Applicant, or her legal personal representative from receiving the benefits in the Fund to which they are entitled pursuant to these Orders;
(e)In the event that the superannuation split to the Applicant pursuant to these Orders can be rolled over into a separate account to the Applicant, each of the parties will do all such acts and things and execute all such documents as may be necessary to facilitate and implement that rollover;
(f)There be liberty to each party and the Trustee of the Fund to apply regarding the implementation of these Orders affecting the interests of the Applicant and Respondent in the Fund.
Unless otherwise specified in these orders and save for the purposes of enforcing any monies due under these or any subsequent orders:
(a)each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all property (including choses-in-action) owned by or in the possession of such party as at the date of these orders including but not limited to any jewelry, furniture, furnishings, shares and motor vehicles;
(b)monies standing to the credit of the parties in any joint bank accounts are to be transferred to the wife and the parties do all acts and sign all documents necessary to close any such accounts;
(c)each party is solely liable for and indemnifies the other against any credit card debts, personal loans and debts of whatsoever nature and kind in that party’s name;
(d)insurance policies remain the sole property of the owner named therein;
(e)each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders; and
(f)any joint tenancy of the parties in any real or personal estate is hereby expressly severed.
The parties do all acts and things necessary to give effect to these orders.
The parties have liberty to apply in respect of compliance with these orders.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Balsam & Lackner is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
DGC 2783 of 2019
| MS BALSAM |
Applicant
And
| MR LACKNER |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introductory
This matter commenced as a parenting and property dispute. On the first day of trial the parties managed to negotiate a set of agreed parenting orders pursuant to which the child of the relationship, X, born in 2011, will live with the mother and spend one night a fortnight with the father until April 2021 when the time will expand from Friday to Sunday together with a shorter amount of time in the alternate week.
Although the orders have a notation that the father may bring a further parenting application after Easter 2022, it is apparent that, at least for present purposes, X will be spending the vast majority of his time with his mother.
The applicant mother seeks a 70/30 split in her favour of the parties’ property interests including superannuation. The father, by way of contrast, seeks an equal division of property save for superannuation, which, it is submitted, should be left to one side.
The real area of difference between the parties is about possessions. There is an enormous dispute about the scope and size of the property pool and what should be made of what the mother alleges is the father’s contumelious wastage of available funds. It is not possible to give a precise account of the differences in this regard.
For the reasons that follow, I am going to order that there be a 70/30 division of the parties’ property interests, save for superannuation, which should be the subject of an order for equalisation.
Some Agreed or Uncontroversial Matters
The applicant mother (the parties never married but I will refer to them on occasion as wife and husband as the occasion makes appropriate) was born in Country F on in 1972. The respondent father was born in 1975. The parties commenced a relationship in Country F soon after they met. The circumstances of their meeting have not been described in any detail but they appear to agree that they commenced to live together shortly after they met.
The parties underwent a form of ceremonial marriage in Country F in 2009 and the mother came to Australia and they lived together until separation under one roof in January 2019. Final separation took place in August 2019.
As earlier indicated, X was born in 2011. He is autistic and suffers significant disability as a result and is subject to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
The mother owned a property in Country F gifted to her by her father in 2007 (wife’s first affidavit) and the husband owned a property at Town B. It appears that the property was encumbered by a mortgage of some $40,000 at the time the relationship commenced but it has since been paid off.
The wife has stayed in possession of the matrimonial home after obtaining an Intervention Order, which effectively included the husband in August 2019. There is a vivid and intense dispute about what either should happen to some of the chattels that remain or as to chattels which both parties maintain that they do not have. These include matters that the father would reasonably regard as being of considerable personal emotional attachment, including his father’s ashes contained in an urn.
The parties have filed voluminous affidavit material but, given the way the matter proceeded, it is more appropriate in these particular circumstances to set out what was said at Court first and then to cross-reference to the parties’ affidavit materials as appropriate. I should make it clear that I have read the parties’ affidavit materials in detail and have regard to all of them.
What follows is taken from my notes. Self-evidently, it is not a transcript but records aspects of the evidence that I found of note.
The Opening and Evidence of the Mother
Counsel dealt with children’s matters and detailed the parties’ ages and the timing of the relationship. Counsel then referred to the property pool and noted that there was a significant area of dispute. The case outline took values back to the date of separation. It is the wife’s case that the husband had chosen to use the parties’ offset account to pay the mortgage and not to work.
He had repaid directors’ loans, he had repaid his brother $61,000 and his mother $125,000. The matrimonial home had been sold and was due to settle on 15 May 2020 with a purchase price of $1,195,000. Estimated cost of the sale was some $25,000 and the outstanding mortgages were approximately $600,000 and $400,000 respectively, so there would be about $180,000 left.
There was $126,000 left in one of the two offset accounts which would reduce to $116,000 because $10,000 was committed to counselling with Ms H. The husband’s legal fees of some $235,000 should be added back. The wife has not paid her legal costs but will have approximately $60,000 to pay when the case is over. There is $74,000 in the J Pty Ltd bank account and $7,500 in the husband’s NAB account.
Numerous cars’ values were taken from the M Insurance and VicRoads documents. The husband’s watch collection, a matter of considerable dispute, no one knows where they are. There was a liability in respect of a Country F debt of $1,800. The wife sought a 70/30 split of superannuation.
The wife was called. She is a health care worker. She adopted her affidavits as true and correct.
Cross-Examination of the Mother
Cross-examination of the mother commenced with the issue of the valuation of the property at Town B. It was put to the applicant that there was no valuation. The mother said she saw the paper. It was done by Region N Shire. She gave it to her lawyer.
Cross-examination then turned to the property in Country F. The mother said she was the registered proprietor. There was no recent valuation but there was one. She had it in 2007 before she came to Australia. The property is still in her name but her father is living there. The idea is it belongs to her but her father is living there. When taxed with inconsistencies in her affidavit material about the property, the mother said, unconvincingly in my view, that on that day she had no interpreter to assist her so she misunderstood.
The mother was cross-examined about the value of the C Pty Ltd. She said that her lawyer had done a search. C Pty Ltd was the employer of the husband. It is possible there is a different amount than the $10,000 in January 2019. She had never seen the statement. It was done by her lawyer.
Counsel put it to the witness that of the $235,000 paid to the husband’s lawyer, $9,500 was for the report of Ms O. The mother said she did not know. Likewise, she did not know that $3,400 had been paid in respect to the Independent Children’s Lawyer. She had not paid the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Cross-examination turned to the Motor Vehicle 1 allegedly worth $16,000. The mother said this was bought in 2010 and transferred to the husband’s mother in September 2019. Her lawyer had found out from VicRoads.
It was put that there was no valuation of the Motor Vehicle 4 to support a $61,000 valuation. The mother said that this was an insurance paper and listed the value of the car. All the valuations of cars have been derived from the insurance policy. It was something like M Insurance. It was put that these were complete write-off values and that the policy provided is for rebuild costs if they are written-off. The mother said she also uses M Insurance to insure her car. She did not know if it was a complete rebuild.
When it was put that the husband’s position was that his Motor Vehicle 4 had a club permit and was worth $15,000, the mother said he had no evidence for $15,000. It was put that the Motor Vehicle 5 and Motor Vehicle 6 were club permits but the mother said she did not know what the requirements were for club permits. The husband has a lot of car interests and belongs to clubs and has permits.
It was put that the Motor Vehicle 5 was owned by the husband’s brother but registered under the husband’s name. The mother said she did not know. They might need to investigate who is the true owner. It was also put the Motor Vehicle 6 is owned by the husband’s brother and the mother said she did not know. It was garaged in Suburb P because there was no room at their place. She did not know that his brother was registered as the driver with VicRoads. She found out all this from the insurance paper. During the relationship she never interfered with his financial businesses.
When it was put to her that the Motor Vehicle 1 allegedly valued at $28,700, but the husband said it is worth $13,000, the mother asked if he had any proof for that. She had got the amount from the insurance papers. It was put to her a Motorcycle Q simply did not exist but the mother said she used to see it. She has a picture of it. It was in the front of the house not that long ago. He always had a big bike.
It was put to her that the husband’s Motorcycle dirt bike was worth $2,000. The mother said he bought it for $5,000 or he told her he had bought it for $5,000 but the insurance was for $3,000. She apparently ultimately accepted the dirt bike was worth $2,000.
Cross-examination turned to the white utility van the wife alleged to be in the husband’s possession. The wife said that he bought it for his girlfriend after separation. She got the figure from the husband who told her he bought it for Ms R. Ms R came to the house to collect it.
It was put that there was no Motor Vehicle 7 as the wife alleged. She said she found a paper which indicated that he had purchased the car last year. She estimated the value. She saw it parked in front of his mother’s house. He sent that car to repair. Before she had only been a housewife and had no interest in his financial interest. Then she found the paperwork and derived new figures.
Cross-examination turned to the Motorcycle S. The wife said it was initially owned by Mr T (the father’s brother) then there was an accident. It was sold verbally to his twin brother without paying a transfer fee as it is still parked at her place in the garage. Mr Lackner said he bought it from Mr T.
Cross-examination turned to the husband’s watch collection. It was put that this had not been valued. The wife said he used to talk to people saying he owned it and that it was worth that amount. On 19 August Mr Lackner took the watches with him. He left home. She had not seen him walk out. He took all his personal belongings. He used his car which was a wagon. She had seen him on the iPhone moving to his mother’s house. All his belongings were gone when she returned home.
She had looked at the list of chattels annexed to the husband’s amended response. Some of the matters on the list she does not have. His brother came with the police but the husband had already taken his personal belongings.
She still has the antique safe from Lackner & Son and if the husband wants it he can take it.
When asked why she had taken so long to make this concession the mother says she has an Intervention Order and is scared of the husband. She denied that there was $5,500 in cash in the safe. She said there was no cashbox. There was nothing in the safe. The watch collection was not in there. She never saw a cashbox or the watches.
When asked why she had not returned the husband’s spare car key the mother said she had asked him where they are. She could not find the keys. He had taken her spare car key. She had to fight to get it back in Court. She only has one car key. It was put to her that she was simply being vindictive but the wife said she did not have the items.
It was put to her that she had invented a Bitcoin valuation of $60,000. The mother said he had told her that he had invested in Bitcoin. He told her he had invested $60,000. This was the year he sold his detailing business.
The wife was cross-examined about the $6,935 spent, allegedly, on improving the house for sale. She said she lives in the property and that is what she paid out before the sale. She cannot take the mirrors with her as they are fixed. She denied that she had any tenants in the property. Her cousin does not live in the property. She and her partner had stayed when they came to help finish the house. It was put to her that the cousin’s husband still has his address at the property but the wife said she was just a postal address for the purpose of collecting mail. She was still with Mr Lackner at that time and she had got Mr Lackner’s permission. The cousin’s husband does not live there and she has not received rent from him or her cousin.
Cross-examination turned to the parties’ finances at the commencement of the relationship. It was put that the husband had paid the deposit of $64,000 on the first property they owned from savings. The wife said this was not correct. She said that when they came together in 2008 there was a big debt in his credit card. It was put that the mother had no money to contribute to the deposit. She said she helped the father financially but she was a housewife and had no money of her own.
The wife was cross-examined about the husband’s receipt of $100,000 in 2011 arising out of a motorcycle collision. She conceded he had told her about this. It was put that those funds were put into the mortgage for the loan of the Suburb U property but the mother said she knew nothing about that. She knew nothing about his financial affairs.
The mother conceded she is employed in the health care sector. She is not working now but used to work for two days per week. She is not working this week. She has two shifts per week and has just signed a contract for permanent part-time work which will commence the next week. She is paid $25 per hour and earns about $300 per week.
When it was put that she had not filed a recent Financial Statement the mother said she had included this in her affidavit. Her income is about $650 a week with statutory benefits and what she earns. It was put to her that she had, additionally, a carer’s allowance for $550 per week but the mother said that with everything she had about $1,300 per fortnight. She only knows the total. She used to receive $1,140 per fortnight but is now up to $1,300. If she earns $300 her Centrelink income will be reduced.
The mother conceded that she receives NDIS benefits for X and these cover his therapy.
Counsel sought to cross-examine on the husband’s expenditure out of the offset accounts but the wife said she did not know. She did not understand his explanations in his affidavit. Her lawyers have seen this.
The wife conceded that there was likely to be one more mortgage payment of about $4,000 out of the $126,000 remaining in the offset account before the property settles. She could not say whether the amount in the J Pty Ltd (now Lackner Industries) account was, in fact, about $56,000.
The wife, during the luncheon adjournment, attended to the annexure to the husband’s response detailing chattels and provided a list of those that the husband could have and those that she should retain and those that she did not have. It was put to her that the car detailing equipment and materials should be returned to the husband as they were his. The wife said this was equipment to wash the car and chemicals for washing tyres. She was not sure what the equipment was. She had ticked that item because it was equipment for washing a car. It was not for detailing. She said she had used the power tools to fix the house and she will have to move house. She does not know where she will need to fix a new home. Her friend can use the power tools.
When it was put to her that a trailer, belonging to Mr V, should be returned, the wife said there was no evidence to prove it was Mr V’s. The numberplate was in the name of Mr Lackner. She said Mr Lackner had already taken a lot of things and she had a photograph. He collected the Motorcycle S. The request for a pushbike was not granted because it was for X.
The wife denied having ever seen the urn with the father’s ashes in it. She saw it a long time ago but they had moved since. She had not since then seen it for a long time. When it was put that a substantial number of items were in the husband’s room the wife said she did not throw anything away. She does not know where the bust is.
Essentially, the wife professed a lack of understanding of the husband’s financial transactions.
In re-examination, the mother confirmed that her valuation of the Town B property was taken from a Region N rates notice. The property in Country F is held on trust. Her father has lived there for 30 years but it was transferred to her name. The father’s partner and her younger brother live there (I would repeat now what I said then. There had been no mention of a partner of the father living at this property at any point in the applicant’s materials).
The wife was re-examined about the number of attendances on the husband’s part post-separation in August 2019. She said that his brother came once with the police in October 2019. The matters marked with a query in her annexure A (tendered as exhibit A1) the husband can have if they are there.
The Opening of Senior Counsel for the Husband
Counsel submitted that the issues were evident. It was a de facto relationship until the Intervention Order in August 2019. The father has obtained a bag of clothes only and there was only one attendance since by Mr T. Mr T took the motorbike.
The parties met in 2007 and became involved soon after. In 2009 they purchased their first property and the husband said his savings of $64,000 were committed to that. This was an initial contribution in his favour. There was also $100,000 in 2011 from the accident. The parties bought the other property as a development and subdivided selling one unit and keeping the other. The husband’s younger brother was involved in the build. Payments were made in accordance with the contract with that brother. It was an arms length building contract. The wife is still in Unit 2.
During the marriage they shared activities but the mother had predominant home duties. The husband was involved in detailing but it was not successful. The asset pool should be considered as it is now. Counsel referred to Vass & Vass [2015] FamCAFC 51 (“Vass”) in relation to add backs. Counsel submitted it is not possible to create assets that do not exist.
Counsel referred to annexure “-14” to her client’s trial affidavit which, it was submitted, shows where all the money had been spent. The money paid to his lawyers was conceded less the $13,000 for Dr O and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. She conceded that the $230,000 paid could be added back less the $13,000.
The offset accounts had very substantially reduced. There is now $126,000 in one account (less the $10,000 allocated to Ms H) and nothing in the other. It was submitted that the table of outgoings was supported by documentary evidence. W Builders built the property and it is the company of the husband’s younger brother. It was submitted that only the legal costs can be properly added back. The contribution made by the husband was higher because of the $164,000 he had put in.
Counsel conceded that in the future the mother would not be rich but this will be the same for the husband. He will earn a living income. He had put $150,000 into his corporate structure to enhance his taxation position. It was treated as a director’s loan. It was paid back as income and declared to tax. There is now $56,000 left in this account and it is the husband’s only source of income. If it is included in the property pool the husband will have no income. The property available for division is effectively the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home in the sum of $180,000 and the $112,000 in the offset account (the $126,000 less Ms H’s $10,000 and the final mortgage payment of $4,000).
The husband has savings of $7,500 and had paid costs of $220,000. There was no evidence of the value of the property at Town B. The husband says it is $60,000 and, in any event, it is a pre-relationship asset. It was submitted this should set-off the Country F property worth $20,000. The husband’s car is worth $15,000. The wife’s car valuation of $6,000 was accepted. The dirt bike is worth $2,000. The pool is, therefore, some $655,000 less the $56,000 income from the husband. If there was to be a loading to the mother, in respect of X, it should be noted that the husband looks after X also. The division should not exceed 50/50. The husband seeks a 60/40 division. There is only $295,500 to disgorge and this is not even 50 per cent.
The Evidence of the Husband
The husband was called and adopted his affidavits as true and correct. The Motorcycle S is now in his brother, Mr T’s, possession. His amended Financial Statement sworn 9 April 2020 was true and correct.
The matter adjourned at this point. Because another matter was part heard the next day the matter was adjourned to the succeeding Monday. At the commencement of that day, senior counsel for the husband raised the question of goods and services tax on the sale price of the matrimonial home because it had not been occupied for six years and tendered an affidavit of an account, Mr X, to that effect. It was submitted that $50,000 should be quarantined to pay the Tax Office.
Cross-examination of the husband then commenced.
The husband said he was aware of his duty of disclosure. When asked why he had not produced a number of documents until a Notice to Produce was served on the preceding Thursday, he said he did not know. When asked why he had not produced all his documents earlier he said bank accounts had been produced only up to the end of the statement. His answers, which were evasive and in my view largely unbelievable, were unpersuasive. He said he could only apologise. He said that in the confusion he thought he was up to date.
Cross-examination turned to the building works conducted at the Suburb U property. The husband said that Y Builders is a registered building unlimited contractor whereas W Builders is a limited building contractor. The bank would not pay a limited contractor and that was why Y Builders was used. He had paid three invoices from W Builders. He paid both Y Builders and W Builders. W Builders is his brother.
There was no contractual relationship between W Builders and Y Builders. He denied that the payments made to his brother were ridiculous.
It was put to the husband that he produced no documents about his Bitcoin collection until the preceding Thursday. The husband said that this was cryptocurrency, not Bitcoin. He had no answer as to why no documentation about the cryptocurrency had been produced until the previous Thursday. He had undertaken no crypto trading since separation or in the year before that. He has had the currency since 2017 and is worth $2,000.
It was put that he had not produced his PayPal records until the previous Thursday and the husband conceded this but said it was all in his bank records. He said he had provided a list of his watch collection which he had done from memory. When asked why the advice about GST from the accountant had not been produced earlier, the husband said he had spoken to his accountant on Thursday or Friday and told him that it was close to settlement. There were requirements for release and the accountant told him about the tax implications. He said he had forwarded everything about the costs of the build. The total cost of the build at Suburb U was about $600,000.
The husband was cross-examined about his proposal that the mother live in Suburb U. He said he was not seeking that she live only in Suburb U but did want her to stay close to X’s school. He confirmed he wanted a 60/40 split in his favour of the parties’ property.
The husband said he wanted the items in annexure A returned to him. The mother should have all the statutory benefits. He was not prepared to allow the mother to have the land at Town B. He had it long before they met. He said her property in Country F was worth more than she conceded. When it was put that the mother would have to rehouse herself he said he would have to do so too. He conceded that X will be with the mother for six out of seven days and would want to see X properly housed.
Counsel put it to the husband that he considered the offset accounts as his money but he said it was not his money, “it was our money”.
He conceded he had seen the videos given to Dr O. He could not remember telling the police it was his house.
Counsel put it to the husband that Dr O’s report suggested he had an attitude of entitlement but the husband disagreed. It was put that that was why he had dissipated funds but he said this was not correct.
The husband conceded that there was about $1 million in the offset accounts at the time of separation in January 2019. The mortgage on Suburb U was about $1 million as well. He conceded that, at that time, there was also a property now known to be worth $1,195,000 additionally. Now the pool consists of about $180,000 less GST plus the $116,000 in the offset account.
There was $56,000 in the J Pty Ltd account. He sold the brand of J Pty Ltd but needed to change the name to Lackner Industries. He had to pay directors loans which were held in Lackner Industries.
When they had sold Unit 1 they moved in to Unit 2 and then intended to live there. It is a double storey house with a garden and a two car garage.
The property at Town B is about 30 minutes past Town Z. It has a derelict house with rocky land. He had never done any work on it and there was no water. He had seen the Region N Shire rates bill (exhibit A1) before but did not agree with its valuation of $109,000. He conceded that there are water pipes on the property but this was not for drinking, this was flood water. They gave him an estimate of $20,000 to connect. He had not had the Town B property valued and had dropped its value from $70,000 to $60,000. He does not know the value of the property.
The husband said there were three properties in Country F but he only had photographic evidence and no documents. It was not correct that the property in Country F was held on trust and would go to the wife’s brother when her father dies. She had not discussed this with him. She had never told him it belonged to her brother.
The husband said that he owns a Motor Vehicle 1 registration number .... These plates were never on his mother’s car and always on his own car. He owns a Motor Vehicle 2 and a dirt bike. The wife’s car is a Motor Vehicle 3. It was bought in her name after separation and has a RedBook value of $13,000. He, in fact, paid $6,400 at an abandoned car auction. The purchase documents, being annexure 16, show a purchase price of $6,400 and there was no valuation.
The Motor Vehicle 1 is now worth $12,000. That is its RedBook value as of today.
Counsel put the M Insurance documents to the husband. That shows the Motor Vehicle 4 valued at $61,000 for reconstruction and the Motor Vehicle 1 valued at $28,700. The husband said this was two years ago. It emerged, however, that his insurance values are valid until 8 August 2019. The husband said $27,000 was not realistic. It would be paid if the vehicle was a total loss.
The husband denied the Motor Vehicle 5 worth $43,000, which does not exist. The Motor Vehicle 6 was his brother’s car as he was the driver. The Motor Vehicle 5 was bought for restoration but never registered. The car was sold for similar money of about $42,000 in 2018.
The husband said that his twin brother Mr T bought and sold this vehicle. When questioned about the Motor Vehicle 6, the husband said he bought it for his brother because his brother was living in Country AA at the time. The car is his but it is not his car. His name was there by clerical error. It is housed in Suburb P at his brother’s property. His Motor Vehicle 4 is also housed in Suburb P. The Suburb P property is 8 to 10 acres in size. He goes there when he can. His brother has four cars there and also other cars that have been pulled apart.
The Motor Vehicle 5 was trucked from Town BB to their place.
He was cross-examined about the wife’s car. He sold a car at page 67 of the wife’s trial affidavit (Motor Vehicle 8) which was the wife’s car which was sold to buy her present car.
The husband was pressed as to the extent to which he bought and sold cars. His answer struck me as evasive. He said his business, J Pty Ltd, has bought and sold a lot of cars. They pick up cars at dealerships and need transport to get there. He had only had 10 cars in 10 years. He bought cars for work purposes and they amassed a lot of kilometres and were, therefore, sold. The vehicles were on the depreciation schedule.
It was put that the husband had transferred a motor vehicle to his mother. He said he had bought that car 10 years ago and it has just been reregistered. His company is not trading. His accountant said the company should not retain vehicles. His mother was using this one so he gifted it to her. It is a Motor Vehicle 9. Then it was registered on 23 September 2019 to his mother. It was ... and transferred to her. It was a gift. Its value at the time of transfer on RedBook was $3000. A car, referred to as sold in his Financial Statement in October 2019, was sold to buy the wife’s new car.
It was put to him that he had not referred to the transfer to his mother in his amended Financial Statement. He said he did not know. His mother had been driving that vehicle since he sold the business. In its current state it was worth $3,000 at best because there were transmission issues. He denied the value attributed to it of $16,000.
The husband conceded he had sold J Pty Ltd in 2017. He received about $250,000. Two cars went with the business and some cleaning materials. The money was put into the business’ bank account but he spent all that money finishing the house and also on living expenses. Monies would be transferred to his savings account and then to where it was sent.
The husband said he had received dividends in 2017 and 2018. He had taken money from the offset account and then paid a dividend to himself. He said $150,000 from their mortgage went into the J Pty Ltd cheque account. He owed the company money so he had to pay it back. The money is still in the account for dividend.
The husband was cross-examined about his business plans. He said these essentially were chaotic. He has 30 per cent share of a business providing materials to car companies but they are no longer operating. He had put $60,000 into another business which was a total loss. This money was put in in about late 2017 to 2018. He has refocused on the J Pty Ltd. He planned to innovate. When asked why he had not got a job the husband said he had worked for himself for 23 years. He is trying to build the business. His headspace has not been the best for the last two years. He is a qualified tradesman but last worked in that capacity in 1994. He may have to get a job. He had lived off the offset account and the reason he had preferred not to get a job was because he preferred to be an entrepreneur. He said he would do his utmost to be employed after they have settled. He pays $504 per month child support and will pay that via the dividends. His assessment, however, for the last quarter was zero dollars.
The husband was cross-examined about the child support assessment at page 56 of the wife’s trial affidavit. He said that he had explained to the Child Support Agency that he could not give an exact estimate of his income. He did not tell them that he should pay nothing. He said he had dividends but there were tax uncertainties. He had last paid child support a couple of weeks ago which came out of his NAB account. He believed he paid monthly. He last paid $500 two to three weeks ago. He has run out of franking credits and needs to be careful about what he takes in dividends. He thinks the next payment of child support is likely to be $500 per month. When the dividend runs out he will be well on his way with what he is going to do. He will pay child support to the best of his ability.
When questioned about his living expenses in the last 12 months the husband said he was paying all the wife’s home insurance, car insurance and mortgage. NDIS pays for X’s activities. He had received no family tax benefits after separation. His credit cards were paid out of the offset account. She did not have a credit card. He gets petrol at Costco. All other purchases are paid out of his NAB account.
Cross-examination turned to the husband’s credit cards. He said his Virgin credit card was his business account and his NAB account was personal but these became somewhat mixed towards the end as he tried to finish the house. There is $56,000 still in the Lackner Industries account.
The husband was cross-examined about expenditure of $4,300 and said there had been a lot of repairs on the car in the last three months. There was $1,600 spent for warranty and the car has done almost 200,000 kilometres. This was not part of his dividend. It was expensive. When asked how he had calculated his dividend in the past the husband said he generally paid four to $5,000 per month to cover his household expenses. He would transfer it into his savings account. The husband confirmed he did not expect to obtain any of the $92,000 held in his solicitor’s trust account in April 2020.
The husband confirmed that the $41,000 in his NAB account ending in #...5, in November 2019 came from the offset account. The $6,000 he had paid in rent and expenses were paying his mother rent and board for three months. He could not remember what period this covered. He was pretty random. He pays his mother $250 per week in rent and also bills. When it was put that this was not in his Financial Statement he said his mum was a pensioner and he has to pay his way. He says he was not taking money out to give it his mother to avoid paying the wife.
He was unable to say what a $3,000 internet payment transfer on 3 December 2019 was. The $5,800 withdrawn on 6 January 2020 was for the wife’s car. The $3,500 withdrawn on 28 January 2020 could be a credit card payment.
It was put to him that he had received government family tax benefits in February 2020 (page 15 of exhibit A4). The husband said this was for the 2018 to 2019 year. When counsel asked him if he had obtained any monies this year he sought to draw the distinction that he was answering about previous years.
I should interpolate and say that Mr Lackner impressed me as being a man with a very clear and significant command of the detailed history of most of his finances.
He had received a tax fund but had kept this to pay bills. The husband conceded that PayPal is to buy things off the internet. Mr Lackner is his credit card.
The husband was asked about home expenses of $10,000 on 27 March 2020. He said $7,000 was for damage to their cars and $3,300 for living expenses. He took it in cash. It was a cash repair of nearly $7,000. He has maybe $1,000 cash at home. A couple of thousand would not be a lot to have at home.
The husband was taken to his PayPal account and went through a number of his purchases which he said were simply setting himself up in his own space.
Counsel took the husband to annexure “-14” being a record of his withdrawals from the offset accounts. He had paid his mother $125,000 on 21 August 2019. He was asked why he had paid that sum on that date. He said dealing with the Bank G is difficult.
His mother’s account was getting close to its maximum. There was no particular reason to pay on that date. He conceded that he was served the Intervention Order the preceding day on 20 August 2019 and he was not happy with that. He denied withdrawing the money because of the Intervention Order. The arrangements to transfer the funds to his mother were underway before that and he told the wife about this last year. He had also paid his brother on the same day. He had to go to the bank to enable him to pay. They give a window of 72 hours. He did not need to do this for $40,000 on 22 October. He took $40,000 for his living expenses because he thought he would be in Court for years.
When it was put to him that he had paid $50,000 to his solicitors on 5 February he conceded this. When asked why he had not considered $50,000 to the wife’s solicitors he said he would have been happy for the wife to get this. (I should make it clear I do not believe that assertion). He said he did not know what to say. He had then given his solicitors $70,000 but had not considered advancing any funds to the wife.
He had paid W Builders $25,742 on 3 April. This was his brother’s business. The invoice for the work was 23 January 2019 and he had not paid previously because he did not have the money. He is not talking to his brother at the moment. He is pretty lousy at paying bills but felt the bill needed to be paid. He denied paying to dissipate funds.
Once again, I would interpolate and say that these answers had all the mark of being made up on the run.
Cross-examination had to cease at the luncheon adjournment because of ill health on the part of the husband of counsel for the wife but recommenced the next day.
Cross-examination on the husband’s bank accounts continued. It was put to him that W Builders was, in fact, his brother and the husband, perhaps tellingly, replied “it was the person who built the house”.
The husband confirmed that Mr CC was a landlord in relation to the failed business and a lease had been assigned.
The entry on 4 February 2019, at page 33 of 223 of his affidavit, related to Mr CC. The husband was no longer a director of the company and his ex-partner paid him back that money that he had borrowed. He had borrowed the $19,000 from his mother. That was taken from her mortgage account. The $69,000, at page 127 of 223, was part of the $125,000 he repaid. He was unable to explain why the $19,000 repayment was not in any of his affidavits. It was borrowed money and he paid it back.
It was put that the $31,500, on 19 March 2020, was a 24 hour loan to Mr DD. He repaid that money to the husband’s personal account. He conceded that the $75,000 paid to his account brought the offset account to nil. The husband denied that the values attributed to the cars in the M Insurance documentation were correct. He was questioned why Mr T had recently been denoted as the driver of the Motor Vehicle 6. He denied contacting M Insurance to make this correction. He denied repaying his mother and brother because he was furious about the Intervention Order.
His mother’s account is a mortgage account. He does not have the password. He does not operate her account online. He does not have access to the account. He calls his mother and tells her he needs money. If there is payment to someone else he gives her the bank details.
He has agreed to pay interest if he was behind. His mother helps out both his brothers. They have paid their loans back.
He was cross-examined about payment records from 2013 in his mother’s bank account at page 52 of 223 and following. He was paying $350 per week to repay his loan. He had paid $40,000 to buy a car but there was no formal loan agreement. He had no idea about a number of substantial credits in his mother’s account from Bank EE. The Motor Vehicle 10 motorcar, referred to at page 76 of 223, was a company car which he sold and gave the money to his mother.
The payments, at page 120 of 223, were payments by his mother for building the Suburb U property which added up to about $95,000. When asked how the $125,000 he had paid his mother was calculated, he said he knew there was more than that. He was taken to page 135 of 223 and he said that he paid out the mortgage. He got the figure because he owed his mother money and paid her $125,000 knowing he owed more than that. When asked how he had calculated interest, in my view, there was no such satisfactory answer. He just agreed with his mother to pay out the account.
The father conceded he is a 30 per cent owner in the C Pty Ltd business. The others are two directors and shareholders. He gave their names. The company is not operating. It has not been wound up. He hopes to restart after the COVID-19 emergency. He proposes to look into the Country FF market.
The husband was further cross-examined about his bank account records. He identified a substantial number as being business expenses. He confirmed that he pays himself dividends. 50 per cent of his expenses might be personal in the sum of $2,000 to $3,000 per month. The detailed cross-examination appeared to me to reveal that a number of expenses referred to in his bank account might have been attributable to the wife although it seemed to me that a majority were personal to him. He maintained that the money spent from his account was spent roughly evenly between them. The wife no longer has a card relating to the account but did until August 2019 when the Intervention Order was taken out.
The husband was further questioned about his cryptocurrency. He said he has not traded for years. He has had the current units for three years and they were earned through mining equipment that he had borrowed.
The husband said he had prepared a list of his watch collection. He had three GG Watches. He had his father’s watch and vintage watches. Some were start-up watches worth only $300-$400. There were between 12 and 17 watches in total which were kept in a black safe. He said that they were carefully stored to avoid scratching and were worth no more than $30,000. They were not insured because the cost of insurance was 10 per cent of their value.
The husband said he was not served with the Intervention Order at home and had not been home. All he took was a bag of clothes. Mr T went to collect his motorbike. He collected the bag of clothes. He had not reported the loss of chattels to the police. The Motorcycle S is with his brother’s.
The husband said he had never paid for his mother to have holidays.
When asked about the $1,800 debt in Country F the husband said that the wife set up her business for her own trading. They were paying a yearly fee for many years. She is a director of the company and he is a shareholder but it is not his business.
HH Pty Ltd is his brother’s company. It is fairly new and has been going for more than a year. He is a salesman for the business but he has not produced any income. Once the company is profitable he will receive 20 per cent on sales. It is not making money at the moment. JJ Pty Ltd is still registered. He had been the owner at the start. The equity at the time was $20,000. He had brought J Pty Ltd into the relationship. He paid the deposit of $64,000 on the unit in Suburb U. They renovated it. He had not borrowed these funds from his grandmother. They were from his savings.
The husband did not agree that the wife had greater expenses in looking after X. He did not agree that her work possibilities were restricted by her command of English. He said she was qualified in health care. He said she could work every day because X was at school.
His mother’s mortgage is no longer available to him as he cannot repay it.
In re-examination the father said he was never asked to contribute to the wife’s legal costs. When asked about the $150,000 paid from the offset account to his company, the husband confirmed that this was where the $56,000 that was retained came from. This is where he gets his dividends. He started paying their expenses out of that account under instructions from his accountant. He has completed his tax return from 2018 to 2019. His income was the dividend. He has no formal qualifications and finished school at year 9. The wife finished school and university and has qualifications. He was excluded from the property and has never been back. He has not received the gas barbecue, and other belongings. He just got clothes.
The Evidence of Mr T
Mr Lackner is a chief operating officer and he confirmed his affidavit as true and correct.
Under cross-examination Mr Lackner confirmed that he had loaned $63,000 to his brother. It was cryptocurrency technology. The husband bought the mining rigs. By the time they arrived this was a volatile industry and they had missed the boat. They lost out because of problems with their supplier. You pre-purchase hardware prior to manufacture. There are thousands of investors. There is 8 to 12 weeks lead time but they waited far longer. He loaned his brother money for cards and cashflow in the past. He had been repaid. His brother is his best friend. If there was no profit he would pay back when he could. He knew there would be no profit 6 to 7 months in but hoped that things that would recover, but this did not occur. The hardware is sitting at his place and could be turned on but this is not likely. He drew the line in late 2019. The request for repayment was made verbally. He sees his brother every other day. He said he would like to be paid. He knew that his brother was developing the property and he let him do that. He asked if he could be paid and please pay it. Both he and his brother are car enthusiasts. The brother’s Motor Vehicle 4 is stored at Suburb P.
The Motorcycle S was not bought by his brother. The Motor Vehicle 6 was bought in 2018. Mr Lackner went interstate to look at it but he never paid for the car. The car was insured with M Insurance on his policy.
He had borrowed about $40,000 from his mother in about 2007. He paid her back when he sold his house. There were 37 payments of $650. He had borrowed it while he was overseas. He was not familiar with the $50,000 transaction on 10 September 2013. He paid his loans when he had the money. His mother makes her account available to him and his brother from time to time.
HH Pty Ltd is his company. It was started in the last couple of years. His brother is in sales and business development.
There was no re-examination.
The Evidence of Ms KK
Ms KK adopted her affidavit as true and correct.
Ms KK confirmed loaning monies to the husband in 2002 for the J Pty Ltd company. The agreement with Mr Lackner was that he was responsible for all interest payments. It was basically an investment line of credit. There was always a very informal agreement. Mr Lackner has no online access. $350 a week was being repaid. Mr T has never borrowed from that account. He borrowed before this and repaid later. The $40,000 repaid by Mr T was the total borrowed over time. They had an agreement about the amount. He was made redundant then paid her out. The $30,000 advanced was separate. This related to two mortgages while he was between houses.
When asked how the $125,000 payout figure was arrived at, Ms KK said it was the total of the overdraft. It included the interest rate payments. Mr T was irrelevant. It was not true that the husband had paid for holidays for her. There is a motor vehicle in her possession at the moment but it is about to be sold. She is buying a new car. The car was gifted to her by Mr Lackner probably last year. She had not paid Mr Lackner $3,000. The car has a transmission problem.
Final Submissions of Counsel for the Husband
Counsel noted that interim orders were not agreed. She sought that $50,000 be set aside for GST. The residue of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home of approximately $130,000 should be given to the wife immediately as part property settlement. There was $116,000 in the offset account and it was likely the bank would probably take this first. The balance should be maintained in trust. Otherwise the husband should keep the $56,000 from which to draw dividends. The wife will need to get a new home and will obtain more than $130,000. Counsel submitted the Court’s first task is to fix the asset pool. There is $50,000 GST and this could be divided equally if it transpired that no GST was payable. The net proceeds of the house are $140,000. The offset account was $116,000 net of Ms H’s fees. There was an admission against interest as to the Town B property of $60,000 and a similar admission against interest of $20,000 in respect of the Country F property. The husband’s bank account is $7,500.
Counsel noted that there was no updated Financial Statement from the wife. In her Financial Statement dated 28 August 2019 the wife had disclosed $20,000 in the bank, as to $13,000 from the NAB and $7,000 from the Bank of Melbourne. The husband has two cars each worth $15,000. It was submitted that the Court should accept the evidence of Mr T and the father about the cars. The wife’s Motor Vehicle 3 was valued at $6000 this being her own valuation. The dirt bike was worth $2,000 and the cryptocurrency was also $2,000. It was conceded that the husband’s $230,000 legal fees could be added back. Counsel went through the various figures and the totals that derived from them.
Counsel submitted there was no doubt that the monies had gone. All the mortgage and utilities were paid by the husband. There was not sufficient evidence to show that the husband had taken excessive amounts. The add back does not create an asset. Counsel referred to Vass at [138]. This should be described as a set off rather than an add back. It should not be applied as an add back simpliciter. They were relevant circumstances pursuant to section 90SF.
Counsel then dealt with the question of contribution. The husband had land worth $40,000 net at the start of the relationship and the wife had $20,000. The husband put up the $64,000 deposit on the first property the parties bought. He also put in his $100,000 personal injury claim. The husband had repaid his mother the day after separation upon which the Intervention Order was served. He had never received his watches and ashes. The debts were owed at that time. The $56,000 in the husband’s possession should be excluded because it is the source of his income. He gives rise to dividends. This is the residue of the $150,000 taken from the offset account. If it is included in the pool the husband will have no income. The cryptocurrency has gone from $50,000 to $2,000. The HH Pty Ltd was another disaster and there is still $6,500 owed in debt. The husband only got his clothes out of the chattels. The wife says the watches are worth $100,000.
Counsel referred to exhibit R1 being correspondence passing between the parties’ representatives in September to October 2019 about chattels. There had been no mention of watches being lost at that time. The husband had not been back to the house and Mr T had only been once to get the motorbike. The power tools and detailing equipment had not been handed over.
The care of X was relevant but both parties would undertake this. Counsel referred to a notation in the parenting orders to the effect that the husband proposes to seek to increase his time with X in the future. Both parties would be likely to have modest earnings as this was historically the case. The wife can work into the future and has a university degree. The wife’s section 90SF(3) matters were offset by the husband’s contribution. There is $90,000 in his solicitors account but there will be nothing left when the trial is finished.
Final Submissions for the Wife
Counsel addressed the interim minutes sought. I will not traverse these further because I dealt with those at the time. Counsel also addressed the question of the $20,000 in the wife’s bank accounts but as the parties will recall I dealt with that by causing the wife to file her up‑to‑date bank accounts. From those it seems that the wife has $2,400 in her NAB account and $7,800 in her Bank of Melbourne account.
Counsel submitted that the correspondence about the watches did not contain any admissions. The husband has spent his money on legal and living costs. After August 2019 all the payments he had made were his save the mortgage and utilities. The wife has an income of $650 and the husband pays no child support. The husband indeed can obtain statutory benefits as he has nil income. The wife insists that the values of the properties should be taken as at the date of separation. At that time they had a property worth $1,000,000, mortgages worth $1,000,000 and an offset account with $1,000,000 in it. Now there is only $300,000. Counsel submitted that the outcome of the case should be 70/30 in her client’s favour. Counsel agreed with the approach indicated in Vass.
Counsel’s submissions turned to the pool. It was submitted that the Town B property was worth $100,000 and she accepted a valuation of $20,000 for the Country F property. There should be $36,000 in the J Pty Ltd (with $20,000 going to GST). There was $116,000 in the offset account. The wife’s car was worth $6,000. Ms KK’s car was worth $16,000. The husband’s motor vehicle 1 was worth $28,700. There were the other cars the subject of dispute. There was the husband’s Motorcycle S and Bitcoin collection, all of which in total added up to $298,000. There was the husband’s watch collection worth $100,000. Taken in all the pool was $880,000 but $1,800 was still owed in Country F. Superannuation totalled $43,032.
Counsel submitted that the contributions were equal at the commencement. The husband had a business and $20,000 in Town B. The wife had the property in Country F worth $20,000. The husband’s evidence in his affidavits suggested he had no savings at the start and the $64,000 he contributed to the first property was probably borrowed. It was conceded the $100,000 had been put in by the husband’s personal injuries claim but this should not be the subject of dollar for dollar accounting.
Counsel submitted that the mother had made significant contribution in leaving Country F. She had left her career over there and had come to Australia, a strange country for her. She had cared for X.
The husband had been seeking to diminish his assets to defeat the wife’s claim. He referred to “his” house and “his” money. He engendered enormous legal costs. The Court should accept Dr O’s assessment as to the father’s sense of entitlement and his attitude to the mother. The contributions between the parties were equal save the $100,000.
Turning to section 90SF(2) counsel submitted while the husband had asserted he had no income and needed the $56,000 to live, it was submitted he was capable of earning. The mother’s earning capacity is limited by the care of X and her lack of command of English. She has chosen to work two days a week. She has to manage the NDIS funding. An 80/20 division was not out of the question but there might be a 70/30 division if there was 10 per cent for the husband’s additional contribution. If there was an $880,000 pool this would give the mother $610,000. If she was to receive the $160,000 from the sale of the matrimonial home plus the property in Country F, plus the $56,000 in the Lackner Industries account plus the $116,000 offset plus the car, she would still be $280,000 shy. She sought that the Town B property be transferred to her. The balance of monies owed could be obtained from the sale of the Motor Vehicle 4 which would get her to 70 per cent. There is $43,000 in superannuation and 70 per cent would need a split. Procedural fairness had already been sought.
In reply senior counsel submitted that the superannuation should be equalised. Further argument took place about interim orders which as I say I determined then.
The Parties’ Affidavits
Much of what the parties have said in their affidavits (much of which is itself repetitive) has been paraphrased above. I note that the wife’s tabulation of the husband’s assets has varied somewhat from time to time. In her first affidavit, filed 28 August 2019, the wife valued the Town B property at $70,000 and her Country F property at $20,000. She valued the husband’s motorbike collection at $100,000 and ascribed no value to his watch collection as being “not known”.
In his first affidavit, filed 9 October 2019, the husband valued the Town B property at $70,000. He asserted multiple properties in Country F with a value that was not known. He gave a value to his watch collection as $10,000 and valued the wife’s handbags at $20,000 and jewellery at $70,000 (mercifully those latter two matters have fallen away).
The next affidavit that touches in a material way on financial matters is that of the husband, filed 9 April 2020. That, however, is essentially concerned with the repayment of loans to his mother and brother – and I have already paraphrased the evidence given about that above.
In his amended Financial Statement, also filed on 9 April 2020, the husband gives a value for his Motor Vehicle 1 at $15,000 and for his Motor Vehicle 2 at estimate of $15,000. I note that although it is his position that he pays his mother rent of $250 a week, there is no mention of such rental in his Financial Statement, and in neither of his financial statements has he completed Part N. He values the Town B now at $60,000 rather than $70,000, and his Bitcoin collection at $2,200, whereas previously it was valued at nil.
In her trial affidavit, filed 13 April 2020 (which runs to 103 pages and like all her other affidavits did not require the attestation of an interpreter), the wife details her expenses at paragraph 36. Leaving aside the perhaps slightly exaggerated figure of $50 for entertainment (bearing in mind the COVID-19 restrictions), the expenses taken as a whole are modest.
At paragraph 39, she details the assets of the parties. In a way not explained in the affidavit the value of Town B is inflated from $70,000 in her first affidavit to $100,000. All the monies described in the assets are as at the date of separation. I note that she values her own Motor Vehicle 3 at $6,000. She ascribes much larger values to the various cars and motor bikes allegedly owned by the husband. I note that she now values the husband’s watch collection at $100,000.
As earlier indicated, the wife deposes that the Country F property is held on trust for her father and will pass to her younger brother (paragraph 41). I note that she claims $7,813.75 for work done on the Suburb U property. It is immediately apparent that some of the items would be still in her possession and of value to her, such, for example, as the fold-up ladder worth $1,264. Similarly, although the wife said that the mirrors referred to in paragraph 45 of her affidavit were not removable, there is no reason to suppose that the pendant lights may not also be removable. It is quite impossible to disaggregate the $7,800 figure in any meaningful way.
In his trial affidavit, filed 9 April 2020, the husband details the assets and liabilities at paragraph 99. The Town B property has now decreased to an estimated value of $60,000. The Motor Vehicle 3 car is said to be worth $15,000 and his Motor Vehicle 1 $12,000. He says his Motor Vehicle 2 is worth $15,000.
Most of the other matters are already traversed, but it is noteworthy that he was prepared to ascribe a value to the wife’s designer handbags of $20,000 and her jewellery of $70,000. These figures are part and parcel of the exaggeration by both sides and that fact of that exaggeration in this instance is well indicated by the fact that senior counsel for the husband had the common sense not to press these matters in cross-examination.
I note that in annexure “-14” to that affidavit sets out what is an agreed schedule of the withdrawals taken out of the two Bank G offset accounts, and it will be appropriate to return to those in due course.
The Affidavit of Dr O
Dr O’s family report was, of course, prepared in the context of the ongoing parenting dispute, which ultimately resolved. The only relevant passage is page 18 of that report (22 of 29 of the affidavit), where Dr O opined:
Psychological assessment of Mr Lackner indicated that he feels highly competitive with Ms Balsam about X’s care and takes a critical approach to her. Many of his attitudes appear to come from an entitled position. He impresses as having been raised in an indulgent household where being encouraged to be self-reflective or take a critical approach to his own behaviour was not emphasised. Mr Lackner appears to have a poor understanding of the psychological make up of others, and his hypotheses about Ms Balsam’s behaviour and background appear to stem from an unsophisticated style of reasoning.
No party required Dr O to give evidence.
The Material Filed as Exhibits
The first document, which I marked as exhibit A1, is an amended version of schedule A to the husband’s response showing chattels. It is noteworthy that of those that the wife says the husband can have he would obtain an air compressor, a car fridge, an antique safe for Lackner & Son and a gas barbeque and an outdoor gas heater. A number of items are “not know where is”, and a number of items are marked as removed. Matters marked as removed are the husband’s clothing, perfumes and toiletries and designer luggage and clothing. The husband has denied receiving any of these.
The next document also confusingly marked A1 is a Region N Shire rate valuation for the Town B property which values the site value at $71,000 and the capital improved value at $109,000.
Exhibit A2 is the J Pty Ltd bank account records from November 2019 until 31 March 2020. They show that the opening balance of $74,379 has declined to $56,106.
Exhibit A3 shows payments into the husband’s solicitor’s trust account and show that he has spent over $230,000 on legal expenses, none of which it appears will be saved from the wreck.
Exhibit A4 is the husband’s personal bank account from 30 November 2019 until 31 March 2020. They show that he has diminished that account from $41,400 to $9,700.
Exhibit R1, which has already been touched upon, is correspondence passing between the parties about the return or non-return of chattels.
Findings About the Witnesses
The applicant wife speaks functional English. One of the difficulties in running the proceeding was that although she insisted on interpretation she frequently started answering questions in an animated fashion before the interpreter had actually finished interpreting the questions to her. She clearly understood the questions and was in a great hurry to give her own responses to them. A number of her answers were non-responsive to the questions put but rather reflected what it was that the applicant wanted to say. Her eager preparedness to allot very significant valuations to things that the husband owned (most particularly his watch collection), and of course the various cars, offset as it was by her eager desire to distance herself from anything she was supposed to own (such as her endeavours to explain that the property in Country F was not in fact really hers) all led me to the conclusion that she was a witness well given to hyperbole in her own interests.
The husband was likewise an unsatisfactory witness. What he said and the way he said it was, in my view, entirely consistent with Dr O’s analysis of him. He was, like the applicant wife, unresponsive to a number of the questions put to him. I have already commentated on some areas of his evidence, which were frankly unbelievable and/or appeared to be made up on the run.
Although it puts the matter shortly, I had the opportunity to observe both these primary witnesses over a protracted period of time and neither of them were good witnesses. Both are clearly determined to get the maximum result practicable out of this case. Their evidence must be approached with caution.
Mr T and Ms KK were, in the main, much better witnesses. Ms KK, in particular, struck me as having an extremely steely personality. She was not a woman to be trifled with and had a very clear command of her financial interests.
Indeed, all members of the Lackner family struck me as being extremely closely attuned to their financial affairs. In this regard, the husband’s very detailed knowledge of some aspect of his affairs sits entirely uncomfortably with his professed lack of memory of others where this lack of memory appears to be to his advantage. This only reinforces the caution with which it is necessary to approach his evidence.
Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52
The Court’s first task is to determine the legal and equitable interests of the parties and determine whether a property adjustment is appropriate. In this case, however, as in so very many cases, the basis upon which the parties conducted their finances as a couple has, of course, completely disappeared. Both parties desire that there be a property adjustment, albeit in radically different outcomes, and it is clearly just and equitable that there should be a property adjustment.
The Pool
This is a vexed area. There is, of course, the roughly $195,000 (less costs of sale) from the matrimonial home. Sale costs of $25,000 appear to be relatively uncontroversial but will be known when the property settles in May.
It likewise seems common cause that there is $126,000 left in the Bank G offset account (the one that has any money in it, all the money in the other has been dissipated) which less Ms H’s $10,000 and the $4,000 final mortgage payment leaves $112,000.
Finally, there is the $56,000 in the J Pty Ltd account, of which I permitted the husband to draw down $5,000.
After this we are into the area of hotly contested issues. I will endeavour to deal with them individually if I can.
The Wife’s Car
The wife concedes that her car is worth $6,000. In the end I think this is uncontroversial.
The Car Given by the Husband to his Mother
Having heard both Mr Lackner and his mother give evidence about this I am prepared, not without misgivings, to accept that this vehicle was transferred to Ms KK, as it were, in a bona fide way prior to separation. It appears to have little value because Ms KK is disposing of it, and her evidence that it has transmission problems and a low value is one I would be prepared to accept, in any event. I will exclude it from the pool.
The Husband’s Car
The husband, who valued the wife’s Motor Vehicle 3 at $15,000 and his own Motor Vehicle 1 at $12,000, contends for these values. In evidence he referred to red book valuations (which have not been put in evidence). The wife points obviously to the M Insurance value, which is some $27,000. There is a certain attraction in both sides’ positions. The husband did not impress me as a man who would spend monies in any fashion contrary to what he perceived to be his own best interests. Since insuring the car for $27,000 must cost at least something more than insuring it for only $12,000, one might be inclined to assume that the higher figure was indeed a truthful one. His position, of course, was that these higher values related solely to total rebuilds.
In circumstances where the wife puts her car at $6,000, it is anomalous to see a car only three years later being worth four times as much. In the end, and not without misgivings, I will take the husband’s Motor Vehicle 1 as being worth $12,000 as an admission against interest.
The Husband’s Motor Vehicle 2
This is insured for $61,000 with M Insurance. I do not accept, unlike the Motor Vehicle 1 , that the husband would insure this at over four times the value he ascribes to it of $15,000 if it was not worth a lot more than that. In this particular instance, and I appreciate that it is a different process of deliberation to that in respect to the other car just dealt with, I think that the $61,000 is the figure that should be included.
The Disputed Motor Vehicle 6 and Motor Vehicle 5 Cars
The evidence about these cars was in many ways unsatisfactory. The conduct of the husband, as I understand it, involved letting his brother utilise his car club membership even though the brother was not entitled to. I strongly suspect that some sort of misconduct in relation to the insurance of these cars has taken place. Nonetheless, in the end I accept that the Motor Vehicle 6 and Motor Vehicle 5 are not in truth those cars that belong to the husband and I will exclude them from the pool.
The Watch Collection and Cash Box
I found both parties’ evidence about the watch collection by and large all but incredible. I accept that the watches were carefully stored, as the husband says. I do not know where they are. I do not know what they are worth.
In respect of the watch collection, and indeed the other chattels (the $5,000 of alleged cash and the chattels in annexure A) the evidence is very unsatisfactory. The wife’s evidence is that the husband bought Motor Vehicle 1 and effectively filled it up. The husband’s evidence is that he did not. Rather, he says he left the home, was served with the Intervention Order and never went back. His brother went round once and collected his (the brother’s) Motorcycle S. It was not clear to me from the evidence given exactly when the husband said such clothing he did obtain was obtained by him, or whether he took it with him on the day.
The evidence from both these parties was, in a general sense, unsatisfactory and, while it is clear that there was a watch collection, it is also clear that I am not in a position to say who has it. Axiomatically, one or other of them is perjuring themselves, unless in some inexplicable way the watches, which were clearly of some value, have simply been lost. I am simply unable to say. I cannot include the watches with any value in the pool.
The evidence in respect of the alleged $5,500 in a cash box is similarly unclear. I am unable to say if it existed, and, if it did, who had it.
Other Assets
There is the husband’s Bitcoin collection. I accept the evidence both of the husband, and more particularly of his brother, who was a more impressive witness, that the values of this had very substantially declined to some $2,200. The brother’s evidence suggested that in the fullness of time they might, but only might, re-accrue, but in the current COVID-19 environment and the associated economic downturn I cannot give the Bitcoins any greater value than that.
Motorcycle S
It is quite clear that the Motorcycle S belonged to Mr T. The wife’s evidence about this was pure supposition and part of her florid tendency to try and inflate the size and scope of the pool to her advantage.
Addbacks
There is no question that the husband has expended an enormous amount of energy and money in trying to defeat the wife’s claim. The case ran effectively over three and a half days, not an excessive period given the interpretation involved. The first day involved resolution of the children’s issues by agreement. How the husband has managed to spend over $230,000 in this regard is, in my view, completely inexplicable by any conclusion other than that the husband has been inordinately active in contact with solicitors in a determined endeavour to defeat the wife’s case. Insofar as this related to his child, this may well reflect simply a determined parent seeking to get the best result he can. But having seen and heard him give his evidence I have no doubt that the insults he heaped on her during the relationship reflect his state of mind. The wife has deposed to him calling her insults to the effect that she was a bar girl or prostitute and these have not been seriously challenged. The parties have been somewhat coy about how they first met (the husband did not explain what work it was that he was doing in Country F, something that might be thought slightly surprising for a tradesman) but in any event it is clear that he regards her as a money-grabbing gold digger who should receive as little as possible.
Senior counsel for the husband did not suggest that the $230,000 should not be taken into consideration but she did refer the Court to the decision of Vass where the Full Court said at 138-139:
138. There is no error committed per se in adjusting the parties’ actual property interests by a calculation involving notionally adding back into the pool sums which have been dissipated by the parties. We reject any suggestion that the decision of Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116; (2013) FLC 93-545 – or, more particularly, the decision of the High Court in Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 - is authority for any necessary contrary solution. Some statements made by the High Court may lead to the conclusion that references to “notional property” as have been referred to in decisions of this court and at first instance may need to be reconsidered.
139. The decisions referred to seek to remind the Court that, however the exercise of discretion might seek to deal with property that is said to be the subject of “add back”, proper consideration must be given to existing interests in property, and the question posed by s 79(2) as a separate inquiry from any adjustment to property interests by reference to s 79(4) if a consideration of s 79(2) reveals that it is just and equitable to alter existing interests in property.
In the circumstances, I propose to add back the $230,000 (less the rounded off figure of $13,000 for Dr O and the Independent Children’s Lawyer) this being something that the husband’s counsel did not in truth significantly oppose.
The Dissipation of the Bank G and Other Assets
The fact is that at the time of separation in January 2019 the parties had a property which has turned out to be worth over $1 million encumbered by mortgages of approximately $1 million. Additionally, the parties had $1 million in the two offset accounts. The position that now obtains is that the mortgages will be paid out and the property will produce a net figure of about $170,000. The offset accounts have been reduced by some $870,000 to $116,000 and are in effect also the source of the $56,000 the husband still retains.
The Loans to Ms KK and Mr T
There is no doubt whatsoever that Mr Lackner paid his mother $125,000 and his brother $65,000 on the day after he was served with the Intervention Order in August 2019. There is less than no doubt in my mind that he did so because he was furious about that development. His attempts to explain the timing were manifestly unsatisfactory and fly in the face of the obvious.
Taking the evidence as a whole and painting with a relatively broad brush (as the dispute between these parties requires in any event) I do in the ultimate, however, accept that these funds were owing. The picture that emerged from the evidence was clear.
Ms KK, from 2002 onwards, made her mortgage account available (relevantly for these purposes) to the husband. The deal was that he would repay all the interest and would ultimately repay her the sums that he borrowed. He appears to have significantly reduced his indebtedness from time to time, but it was, as Ms KK herself said, in effect a kind of line of credit for her son. Like many a mother before her, she would go a long way to help her children.
Nonetheless, as I indicated earlier, Ms KK struck me as being a formidable personality. You do not borrow money from her and not repay it. The fact is that it was repaid at the time that it was and in the amount that it was out of spite towards the mother does not mean that the money was not actually owing. Ms KK’s mortgage statements show quite clearly that she was $124,000-odd in debt in August of last year and I accept her evidence that this was essentially through loans taken out by her son. The son’s endeavours to explain the methodology of the calculation of the repayment amount are all just rubbish. What happened was he paid out the account as it then stood.
Similarly, the loan from Mr T cannot be doubted. He advanced the $66,000-odd dollars to his brother to buy Bitcoin. Once again, the timing of the repayment owes nothing to the explanations given by the husband and by Mr T. It was plainly an act of pique. Nonetheless, these were funds that he did owe his brother and on balance I think they represent a bona fide repayment. As I say, and indeed repeat, the timing was all to do with an endeavour alienate funds from the property pool. It was undoubtedly precipitated by the Intervention Order. Nonetheless, the monies were ultimately owing and on that footing I will not pay regard to those funds.
I do not propose, however, to go through annexure “-14” like an accountant seeking to do a dollar-for-dollar calculation. Some of the moneys repaid were plainly mortgage repayments. Some of the monies taken out were plainly extravagances on the part of the husband (such as the $40,000 removed for “fund family’s living expenses” on 22 October 2019). The husband had much to say about how he was paying all the wife’s mortgage and utilities, but this is not in fact the case. He was withdrawing those funds from the Bank G line of credit. He was not providing any of these funds, as I find, himself.
The repayments to the company W Builders are, in my view, much more questionable. Although the husband says that these were payments to repay his brother’s business (his other brother, not Mr T) the timing of these could scarcely be more obvious. According to him the debts were long overdue and he just happened to have the monies and decided to pay them. What he was doing was alienating funds to ensure that there was as little available to the wife as possible. The payments to Mr CC which appear to relate to the failed HH Pty Ltd are more opaque but if one takes a step back the overall position could scarcely be clearer. The alienation of some $840,000 in a period of just over one year speaks for itself. The husband has plainly sought to diminish the available pool. Indeed, this ignores another questionable part of the husband’s dealings. He appears to have syphoned off $150,000 to his business in the form of a director’s loan. He is then repaying that director’s loan directly to himself. The husband’s evidence about this was obfuscated to an extent with remarks about accountant’s advice. Nonetheless, the clear picture that emerges is that this is once again part and parcel of his determined endeavours to ensure that there would be as little as possible available to the wife.
I note that the $150,000 was described in exhibit “-14” as being part repayment of loan from Lackner Enterprises. The reality, of course, is that Lackner Enterprises Pty Ltd is, and always was, the husband. This circular dealing in funds just once again goes to reinforce the overall picture which could scarcely be clearer. The husband was determined to ensure the wife got as little as possible.
Against this miasma of complicated bank records and financial dealings generally it seems to me that the pool can properly now be described (the wife’s desire for values at separation is untenable given the nature of events) as:
·proceeds of sale of matrimonial home - approximately $170,000 (less any applicable GST)
·funds available from the remaining Bank G line of credit - $112,000
·funds in J Pty Ltd bank account - $51,000
·wife’s car - $6,000
·husband’s car - $12,000
·husband’s Motor Vehicle 2 - $61,000
·husband’s dirt bike - $2,000
·husband’s Bitcoin collection - $2,200
·property at Town B - $109,000 (I accept the rates notice. The evidence is that some sort of work has taken place upon it and council rates notices are notoriously conservative).
·wife’s property in Country F - $20,000 (I do not accept at all her specious endeavours to explain away her interest in this property. If it was to be held on trust for her father there is no earthly reason why he should have transferred it to her in the first place. He has lived there for many, many years).
·Add back husband’s legal fees - $217,000
·husband’s superannuation - $41,632
·wife’s superannuation - $1,400
I have not included the parties’ current bank account holdings or the $1,800 debt in Country F. The wife has approximately $2,000 more in the bank than the husband and it is therefore an equal outcome if she pays the Country F debt. The sums involved are minimal in any event.
Over and above these matters, I accept, as the Full Court seems to me to have made clear in Vass, that the Court may have proper regard pursuant to section 79(4) to the husband’s overarching conduct in diminishing the pool with the sole aim of disadvantaging the wife.
I should finally note that the parties’ superannuation is modest. There has been no submission that any sufficient portion of this superannuation is so clearly amassed outside the issue of the relationship that it should be excluded from the pool (but see also paragraph 215).
Contributions
This was a relationship of some 11 years. It has had the extra difficulty of dealing with an autistic disabled child. It is clear that the primary burden of this care lay with the wife. She was staying at home and the husband was working in various different interests.
The husband brought in the Town B property. He has evinced a determination not to sell it or to give it to the wife. It is hard to see why given that he has owned it for many years and it sounds as though it has no developmental value at all. One would have thought he might want to realise it. Nonetheless, he owned this property before the relationship started and it would seem far more probable than otherwise, given that the was the only person earning, that the diminution and ultimate extinguishment of the prior $40,000 mortgage is, as it were, down to his efforts alone.
The wife brought in the Country F property and likewise that has been hers alone at all times.
Turning to the overarching picture, as indeed the Court is required to do. It is true that the husband has a car worth $61,000 that I presume he possessed at the start of the relationship and did for many years before, but since he is going to keep that anyway in my view little turns upon it. It is also true that the husband contributed the $64,000 deposit on the first home and his $100,000 personal injury payment but these were some years ago and there is no evidence that would enable the Court to determine in any precise dollar for dollar way how much they are effected in the current outcome (given the husband’s dissipation of funds). They are of course relevant considerations and I bear them in mind. Bearing in mind, and not forgetting the $230,000 addback, but making sure, as it were, that there is no double-counting, I would nonetheless assess the parties’ contributions, in the light of the husband’s undoubted dissipation of assets, as being 60 per cent to the wife and 40 per cent to the husband. I repeat that in making this assessment I have not double counted the addback, but the husband’s determination to diminish the pool to spite the wife is not something that could properly be ignored as a matter of justice and equity. I repeat, taken overall, the contributions should be assessed at 60/40 excluding the parties’ future needs.
Future Needs
Both these parties, in my view, have somewhat underplayed their future employability. The wife impressed me as being a woman of considerable energy and determination. She is capable of working at the moment, albeit that I accept her capacity to do so will be limited, and on an ongoing basis, by the special needs of X. The industries in which she is likely to be able to work are not likely to be significantly remunerative. The fact that she may have a degree in Country F in my view is, for these purposes, essentially irrelevant. She has never used those talents in all her years in Australia and there is no reason to suppose that she will now.
The husband likewise struck me as being a man of very considerable determination and in the ultimate ,likely entrepreneurial skill. He sold his J Pty Ltd for $250,000 relatively recently. I had the clear picture that he is deliberately not earning at the moment. That is so notwithstanding the effects of the COVID-19 virus. I think that once this case is over he will rapidly turn his considerable energies and skills to his financial future. He will continue to have the support of his mother, as I have no doubt. The fact that he left school at year 9 in my view is not much of an inhibitor for him. On his own evidence, he was able to build and run an Australia-wide business notwithstanding this deficiency.
The wife will need to rehouse herself and although the husband says that he cannot live indefinitely at his mother’s, the fact is that he lives there, as I find, rent free (his evidence about the money he pays to his mother was extremely unconvincing). He is in a much better position to re-establish himself than the wife who will continue to have the significant financial and emotional burden of X’s care.
In all the circumstances I find that the wife’s future needs require a further 10 per cent adjustment in her favour.
Just and Equitable
I have followed thus far what might be described as the standard methodology generally adopted in property dispute cases. This is a methodology which is often thought to be extremely helpful in assisting the Court to arrive at a just and equitable final outcome. It should be noted however it is not a mandatory scheme (see for example, Murphy J in Baglio v Baglio [2013] FamCA 105 at [181]), and it is certainly not provided for, in terms, in the legislation. The Court’s overarching responsibility is to provide a result that is just and equitable. In this case, the practical realities of the matter impinge significantly on what I otherwise might have thought would be an appropriate decision. Counsel for the husband is correct to say that the Court cannot divide up money that simply is not there. The net value of the pool, including the $217,000 addbacks, is approximately $762,000 and 70% of that is approximately $533,000. In cash terms, there is only $333,000 to divide, together with the Town B property, the Country F property and the parties’ superannuation.
In the particular circumstances of this case, in my view, the just and equitable outcome is that the husband should retain the Town B property and his cars and there should be an equalisation of superannuation. The wife should retain all the other funds.
I do not think that the husband should be made to disgorge his property at Town B as the wife seeks. He owned it prior to the commencement of the relationship and as I have earlier indicated the wife has never contributed anything to it. It will also provide him with, should he be minded to change his mind and sell it, at least a certain amount of funds with which to reconstitute his affairs.
So far as superannuation is concerned, no evidence has been led as to the extent to which the husband’s $41,000 of superannuation was accrued during or before the relationship. Given that superannuation has been with us for a number of decades, I think it is reasonable in the circumstances that the husband not be deprived of 70 per cent as the wife suggests but rather that an equalisation of superannuation should take place. It should be noted that this is part of the overarching picture of the Court endeavouring to do justice and equity between the parties.
Turning to the question of funds, it is obviously at one level of analysis a stark outcome when a man who has earned the money in a relationship of 11 years walks away with virtually nothing (although he has his car and some other chattels). Nonetheless, the overarching picture as I have said already, is entirely clear. At separation, the parties effectively had $1,000,000 and now they have nothing like that figure. True it is that some of the monies had been expended were expended to the benefit of the wife in the form of the mortgage and the like but the picture could not be clearer. The husband has gone to an enormous amount of time and trouble to diminish the pool to prevent the wife from having any of it. He has had his fun and now he must be held to account. The wife’s future earnings will be modest, she needs to set herself up and needs a home in which to care for X. The $333,000 that is available will in no wise be overly generous to enable her to do so. She will receive all the funds.
Chattels
This unedifying aspect of the dispute really should never have been a matter for the Court. Of the items in exhibit A-1, it is immediately apparent that the trailer belonging to Mr V and the Weber barbecue belonging to Mr V should be returned to the husband. Whether he needs to return them to Mr V or not is neither here nor there. On any view, they are not possessions of the wife.
Similarly, the power tools, hand tools and car detailing equipment and chemicals are plainly tools of the trade of the husband and he should have those.
So far as the matters marked as “not know where is”, these are all matters that are entirely personal to the husband. If they can be found they should be returned to him. I will hear from the parties as to how this may best be done.
GST on the sale of the Former Matrimonial Home
I have already directed the parties to take steps to try and resolve this aspect of the matter. I further note that in any event it would seem that the husband has engendered relatively significant capital losses in his business endeavours of recent times. As I understand the law in relation to tax, he should be able to offset those capital losses against any capital gains he is required to pay in respect to the former matrimonial home. I will hear further from the parties in respect to this aspect of the matter also.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and twenty (220) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt
Associate:
Date: 15 May 2020
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Equity & Trusts
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Remedies
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
0
4
2