Bambury and Bambury and Anor

In *Bambury and Bambury*, heard by Judge C. E. Kirton QC, the dispute concerned the division of property between the applicant wife and respondent husband, with the primary issue being the nature of certain funds advanced by the husband's parents (the Interveners) to the husband. The Interveners sought declarations that these advances constituted loans for which both the husband and wife were jointly and severally liable, and that the matrimonial home was subject to a trust or equitable charge to secure repayment of these alleged debts. The court was required to determine whether the advances were indeed loans, and if so, to whom they were made, and whether the wife had any liability to the Interveners.

The court applied the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, as stipulated by s.140 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). The reasoning focused on the evidence presented to establish the nature of the financial transactions. The court ultimately found that the funds advanced by the Interveners were loans made solely to the husband, not to both parties jointly. Consequently, the Interveners' claims against the wife were dismissed.

The final orders reflected this determination. The proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home were to be disbursed, with a portion allocated to the wife's rental arrears, a significant sum to the wife, and a further sum to the husband. The husband was ordered to pay the Interveners the sum of $176,700, along with pre-judgment interest of $9,247.93, reflecting the court's finding that the debt was solely his. The dispersal of the sale proceeds between the husband and wife was deferred pending any costs applications. Each party was to retain their personal property, and specific orders were made regarding the husband's superannuation interest, entitling the wife to a portion thereof.