Barrett & Winnie

In *Barrett & Winnie*, Mr Barrett (the applicant) sought property adjustment orders against Ms Winnie and several companies (the respondents). The applicant contended that certain property had been dealt with by ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlements within the meaning of s 85A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The parties had separated almost 16 years prior to the proceedings, and there had been extensive involvement and contributions by third parties over a significant period after the marriage. The applicant had made no significant contributions to the property of the trusts, and already held approximately 95 per cent of the value of the property interests held by the parties.

The court, presided over by Kent J, was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make property adjustment orders, particularly in light of the applicant's claim regarding settlements under s 85A. A key issue was the applicant's attempt to reopen evidence after judgment had been reserved, concerning matters such as superannuation, the application of funds from property sales, capital gains tax liability, parenting contributions, and the applicant's involvement in Westpac borrowings. The court also had to consider the extraordinary delay in the proceedings and attribute responsibility for it.

Kent J found that the applicant had been dilatory in prosecuting his application, and this delay was relevant to considerations of justice and equity. While the applicant sought to reopen evidence, the court allowed the admission of Westpac documents and documents concerning the applicant's superannuation interests by consent. However, the court rejected the applicant's broader application to reopen evidence. The court noted that the applicant had made no contribution to loan repayments or the maintenance of a property despite occupying it, and that the applicant already held the vast majority of the parties' property interests.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application to reopen evidence, save for the admitted Westpac and superannuation documents. The Further Amended Application for Final Orders filed on 18 March 2010 was also dismissed. Any party seeking costs was required to file and serve a separate application.