Beyer & Beyer
[2023] FedCFamC2F 59
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Beyer & Beyer [2023] FedCFamC2F 59
File number(s): SYC 1966 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE ELDERSHAW Date of judgment: 31 January 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – FINAL ORDERS – Where the parties entered a Financial Agreement – Where the parties have departed from the intention contained in the Agreement – Where the parties recorded their contributions to the Property in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet – Where the parties maintained a high degree of separateness – Where the parties’ direct financial contributions to the Property were equal as of April 2021 – Where a two-pool approach is adopted – Where the financial contributions favour the wife – Where the non-financial contributions favour the husband – Where there is adjustment for the disparity in age – Where orders are made to equalise the parties’ superannuation and non-superannuation assets Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79, 90UC, 90UJ, 90XE, 90XT, 106A, 121
Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth) Pt 6
Cases cited: Adair & Adair [2019] FamCAFC 70
Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92 – 595; [1995] FamCA 10
Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93 – 898; [2019] FamCAFC 78
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17
Perrin & Perrin (No 2) [2018] FamCAFC 122
Simons & Simons [2020] FamCAFC 128
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 125 Date of hearing: 16 & 17 January 2023 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Stapleton Solicitor for the Applicant: SWAAB Attorneys Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Howard Solicitor for the Respondent: Neilan Stramandinoli Family Law ORDERS
SYC 1966 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR BEYER
Applicant
AND: MS BEYER
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE ELDERSHAW
DATE OF ORDER:
31 January 2023
ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All prior orders in these proceedings be discharged.
2.By no later than 4.00 pm on 1 May 2023 (“the Due Date”), the husband shall pay the wife the sum of $259,237.
3.If the husband fails to fully comply with Order 2 herein by the Due Date, then the parties shall do all acts and things, and sign all documents necessary, to sell the property known and situated at B Street, Suburb C in the Australian Capital Territory (“the Property”) for the best price reasonably obtainable.
4.In the event the parties cannot agree on the appointment of an agent, engagement of a conveyancer or other matters relevant to the conduct of the sale of the Property, Order 17 herein shall apply to the extent necessary.
5.The sale proceeds of the Property shall be distributed in the following manner and priority:
(a)On discharge of any loan account that is secured by way of registered mortgage;
(b)In payment of the costs of legal fees and disbursements incurred by the conveyancer acting for the parties;
(c)In payment of the selling agent’s commission and any reasonable costs of sale incurred by the agent including marketing fees, styling costs and other agreed expenses;
(d)In payment of any council rates, water rates or other ordinary adjustments on sale as advised by the conveyancer; and
(e)Of the balance:
(i)37 per cent of the net sale proceeds to the Applicant; and
(ii)The remaining balance to the Respondent.
6.Pending the discharge of Order 2 or Order 5(e) as may apply, the husband shall pay as and when they fall due, all mortgage repayments, council and water rates, and home building insurance costs of the Property without further recourse to the wife.
Superannuation Splitting Order
7.In accordance with s 90XT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), whenever a splittable payment within the meaning of s 90XE becomes payable to, or on behalf of, the wife from her interest in Super Fund D (“Super Fund D”), the husband is entitled to be paid by the Trustee of Super Fund D, (“the Trustee”), the amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth), using a base amount of $43,931, and that there be a corresponding reduction in the entitlement the wife would have had but for this Order.
8.The operative time for the preceding Order be four business days after the service of a sealed copy of these Orders on the Trustee.
9.Orders 7 and 8 herein bind the Trustee.
Other Matters
10.Within 28 days from the date of these Orders, the parties will do all acts and things as necessary to close any jointly held bank account with the balance, if any, to be divided between them equally and any bank fees or charges to be paid by each of them equally if such fees and charges exceed the available balance.
11.Except as otherwise provided by these Orders, each party shall retain, to the exclusion of the other, all bank accounts, superannuation entitlements, pension entitlements, vehicles, personal effects and household contents of which that party is the account holder, named member or interest holder, registered owner or is otherwise in possession.
12.Except as otherwise provided by these Orders, each party (“the first party”) shall be solely liable for any credit card, taxation or other debt howsoever incurred or arising, and standing in that party’s name at the time of the making of these Orders AND this Order may be relied on by the other party as a defence against any claim for the whole or any part of the said debt by a third party creditor, and against any claim for contribution or apportionment of such debt by the first party.
13.Each party must do all acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary to give effect to these Orders.
14.In the event either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument within 14 days of being requested to do so, then a Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia be appointed pursuant to s 106A of the Act to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.
15.Pursuant to s 121 of the Act, for the purpose of assisting in the orderly implementation of these Orders, each party is granted leave to provide a copy of these Orders to the Australian Capital Territory Land and Property Information Office (or howsoever named), any lending institution or finance broker, to the agent who has been appointed to act on any sale of the Property, and for the purpose of giving effect to the indemnity provisions of these Orders.
16.The wife be released from the Undertaking filed by her in these proceedings on 11 July 2022.
Mechanism and process of sale if parties unable to reach agreement
17.In the event the parties cannot agree on any aspect of the process for the sale of the Property, the following provisions shall apply as needed:
(a)Within 14 days of the Due Date, the parties shall agree on the appointment of a real estate agent failing which:
(i)The husband shall nominate three local agents to the wife together with their marketing proposal, marketing fees, advertising fees, sales commission and any other relevant information;
(ii)Within a further seven days, the wife shall select from the three nominees, and such selection shall bind both parties; and
(iii)In the event the wife does not select an agent within the specified time, the husband may select the agent and the selection shall bind both parties.
(b)Within 14 days of the Due Date, the parties shall agree on the engagement of a conveyancer failing which:
(i)The husband shall nominate three appropriately qualified conveyancers to the wife together with their fees;
(ii)Within a further seven days, the wife shall select from the three nominees, and such selection shall bind both parties; and
(iii)In the event the wife does not select an agent within the specified time, the husband may select the conveyancer and the selection shall bind both parties.
(c)In the first instance, the Property shall be listed for sale by public auction with such auction to be not more than six weeks after the Due Date;
(d)Except as otherwise, agreed, the contract of sale shall state a completion date of 42 days after exchange;
(e)Any up-front costs of marketing, advertising or styling shall be paid equally;
(f)If the Property is to be auctioned, the reserve price shall be as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement shall be as recommended by the selling agent;
(g)If the Property is listed for sale by public auction and the property is passed-in, such party, or parties, who are present at the auction may negotiate a sale with the highest bidder, with such negotiation to bind both parties provided the agreed price is not less than three per cent below the reserve;
(h)If the Property is passed in at auction, it shall be re-listed for sale or auction, as agreed, but failing agreement by private treaty; and
(i)The listing price for ay private treaty shall be as recommended by the agent but not less than $725,000 in the case of the first listing and then in reducing increments of three per cent if the property remains unsold after six weeks.
Procedural Matters
18.All outstanding applications are otherwise dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Beyer & Beyer has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE ELDERSHAW:
INTRODUCTION
These proceedings concern property distribution pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
The Applicant husband is Mr Beyer (“the husband”), born in 1971. The Respondent wife is Ms Beyer (“the wife”), born in 1979.
The parties commenced living together in 2010. The parties married in 2015 and separated on a final basis on 31 December 2019. There are no children of the relationship.
Documents
The husband relies on his Amended Initiating Application filed 17 August 2022, and his affidavit and Financial Statement both filed 19 December 2022. He also formally cites his Genuine Steps Certificate and Financial Questionnaire filed 25 March 2022 and Undertaking as to Disclosure filed 18 May 2022.
The wife relies on her Amended Response filed 18 August 2022, and her affidavit and Financial Statement both filed 20 December 2022.
Both parties relied on a Case Outline Document.
The wife’s Case Outline Document lists the affidavit of Ms E filed 20 December 2022. That affidavit was not read. The husband’s Case Outline Document refers to valuation reports for the B Street, Suburb C property. Those reports were not in evidence as the relevant values were agreed.
I have had regard to the following Exhibits:
Exhibit H1 Minute of Orders sought by the husband dated 16 January 2023 Exhibit H2 Joint Balance Sheet Exhibit H3 Bundle of financial documents (comprising 29 pages) Exhibit H4 Bundle of financial documents (comprising five pages) Exhibit W1 Bank F “Mortgage Loan Account” statement for the account ending …00 for period 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2022 Exhibit W2 Financial Agreement pursuant to s 90UC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) dated 23 July 2012 Exhibit W3 Summary page from the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet Exhibit W4 Transaction History for Bank F “Mortgage Loan Account” ending …00 as at 31 January 2022 Exhibit W5 Westpac eSaver Bank Account Statement for account ending …08 for period 17 September 2010 to 18 March 2011 Exhibit W6 Letter to Super Fund D Fund Trustee Exhibit W7 Aide Memoire as to the effect of the wife’s proposed orders
Both parties say the husband would retain the former matrimonial home subject to a cash adjustment to the wife, and that each party otherwise retain their own non-superannuation assets and liabilities.
The husband’s position changed during the hearing. On the first morning of the hearing, the husband sought to retain 63 per cent of the overall assets using a one pool approach without disturbing any superannuation. In closing submissions, counsel for the husband contended that contributions should be assessed as about 53 to 55 per cent in favour of the husband, and that there should be a future needs adjustment in favour of the husband of about 2.5 per cent.
The wife seeks that the cash payment to her should represent 55 per cent of the non-superannuation assets and an equalisation of superannuation. Counsel for the wife amended the Orders contained in the wife’s Amended Response to reflect this position by substituting “$313,038” in Order 2, “$725,000” in Order 5.4, and “$43,931” in Order 11, in substitution for the sums which were otherwise stated in the document.
Defined Terms
The following defined terms are used in these Reasons:
(a)“The Property” means the former matrimonial home at B Street, Suburb C in the Australian Capital Territory of which the husband is the sole registered proprietor;
(b)“Mortgage Loan Account” means the account with Bank F ending …00 and secured by the Property. This loan account is in the husband’s sole name and was established when he acquired the Property in 2009;
(c)“…06 Offset Account” means the interest offset account with Bank F ending …06. This account is in the parties’ joint names and is styled “G Account”;
(d)“…07 Offset Account” means the interest offset account with Bank F ending …07. This account is in the parties’ joint names and is styled “Ms Beyer”;
(e)“…07 Everyday Account” means an everyday savings account with Bank F in the wife’s sole name; and
(f)“…03 Offset Account” means the interest offset account with Bank F ending …03. This account is in the husband’s sole name and was established with the Mortgage Loan Account in 2009.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Section 79 of the Act relevantly provides:
(1)In property settlement proceedings, the court may make such order as it considers appropriate:
(a) in the case of proceedings with respect to the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them - altering the interests of the parties to the marriage in the property;
[…]
(2) The court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the order.
[…]
(4) In considering what order (if any) should be made under this section in property settlement proceedings, the court must take into account:
(a) the financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage, or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last‑mentioned property, whether or not that last‑mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and
(b) the contribution (other than a financial contribution) made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage, or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last‑mentioned property, whether or not that last‑mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and
(c) the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or parent; and
(d) the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party to the marriage; and
(e) the matters referred to in subsection 75(2) so far as they are relevant; and
[…]
Before an order is made adjusting the parties’ property, the Court must be satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so: Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 (“Stanford”). As explained in Stanford:
36. The expression "just and equitable" is a qualitative description of a conclusion reached after examination of a range of potentially competing considerations. It does not admit of exhaustive definition. It is not possible to chart its metes and bounds. And while the power given by s 79 is not "to be exercised in accordance with fixed rules", nevertheless, three fundamental propositions must not be obscured.
37. First, it is necessary to begin consideration of whether it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order by identifying, according to ordinary common law and equitable principles, the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property. So much follows from the text of s 79(1)(A) itself, which refers to "altering the interests of the parties to the marriage in the property" (emphasis added). The question posed by s 79(2) is thus whether, having regard to those existing interests, the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order.
38. Second, although s 79 confers a broad power on a court exercising jurisdiction under the Act to make a property settlement order, it is not a power that is to be exercised according to an unguided judicial discretion. In Wirth v Wirth, Dixon CJ observed that a power to make such order with respect to property and costs "as [the judge] thinks fit", in any question between husband and wife as to the title to or possession of property, is a power which "rests upon the law and not upon judicial discretion". And as four members of this Court observed about proceedings for maintenance and property settlement orders in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong:
The judge called upon to decide proceedings of that kind is not entitled to do what has been described as 'palm tree justice'. No doubt he is given a wide discretion, but he must exercise it in accordance with legal principles, including the principles which the Act itself lays down.
[…]
40. Third, whether making a property settlement order is "just and equitable" is not to be answered by beginning from the assumption that one or other party has the right to have the property of the parties divided between them or has the right to an interest in marital property which is fixed by reference to the various matters (including financial and other contributions) set out in s 79(4). The power to make a property settlement order must be exercised "in accordance with legal principles, including the principles which the Act itself lays down". To conclude that making an order is "just and equitable" only because of and by reference to various matters in s 79(4), without a separate consideration of s 79(2), would be to conflate the statutory requirements and ignore the principles laid down by the Act.
The approach to contributions is central to this matter. In Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93 – 898 the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia traversed the relevant authorities as follows:
35. That submission was based on a passage in Williams & Williams [2007] FamCA 313 (“Williams”) in which the Full Court said:
26. We think that there is force in the proposition that a reference to the value of an item as at the date of the commencement of cohabitation without reference to its value to the parties at the time it was realised or its value to the parties at the time of trial, if still intact, may not give adequate recognition to the importance of its contribution to the pool of assets ultimately available for distribution towards the parties. Thus where the pool of assets available for distribution between the parties consists of say an investment portfolio or a block of land or a painting that has risen significantly in value as a result of market forces, it is appropriate to give recognition to its value at the time of hearing or the time it was realised rather than simply pay attention to its initial value at the time of commencement of cohabitation. But in so doing it is equally as important to give recognition to the myriad of other contributions that each of the parties has made during the course of their relationship.
[…]
51. At [105] the primary judge referred to Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844 (“Pierce”). That case represents the culmination of a line of authorities bearing on the issue of how to weigh an initial contribution against other contributions made by the parties over the course of their relationship.
52. The suggestion that an initial contribution could be “eroded” or “offset” over time by subsequent contributions made by the other party was first made in Lee Steere and Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626 in which the Full Court said at 80,078:
The longer the duration of the marriage, depending on the quality and extent of her contribution, the more the proportionality of the original contribution is reduced … the proposition that the strength of a contribution made at the inception of a marriage is eroded, not by the passage of time but by the off-setting contribution of the other spouse, still holds true.
53. In Money and Money (1994) FLC 92-485 at 81,054 (“Money”) Fogarty J further observed that:
the term “off-setting contribution” does not necessarily mean “greater contribution”. It simply reflects the circumstance that the respective contributions of the parties over a long period of marriage may “offset'” the significance which might otherwise be attached to a greater initial contribution by one party … the original contribution should not be carried forward as a mathematical proportion; ultimately, when it comes to the trial such a contribution is one of a number of factors to be considered. The longer the marriage the more likely it is that there will be later factors of significance, and in the ultimate the exercise is to weigh the original contribution with all other, later, factors and those later factors, whether equal or not, may in the circumstances of the individual case reduce the significance of the original contribution.
54. Finally, in Pierce, after quoting Fogarty J’s remarks in Money, the Full Court said:
28. In our opinion it is not so much a matter of erosion of contribution but a question of what weight is to be attached, in all the circumstances, to the initial contribution. It is necessary to weigh the initial contributions by a party with all other relevant contributions of both the husband and the wife. In considering the weight to be attached to the initial contribution, in this case of the husband, regard must be had to the use made by the parties of that contribution.
55. Again, consistent with the authorities set out above and those which we discuss below, the import of Pierce is that the weight to be attached to an initial contribution must be assessed against the rubric of all of the contributions, both financial and non-financial, made by the parties over the course of their relationship.
56. The final authority the primary judge referred to was Wallis & Manning (2017) FLC 93-759 which was a case involving a long marriage. The family farm had been given to the parties by the husband’s father early in the marriage.
57. Her Honour said:
113. In considering the question of contributions, the Full Court said:
The length of a marriage is important, then, in assessing the respective contributions of the parties, particularly when it is said that significant capital contributions made early in the marriage are a dominant feature of that assessment.
…
The gifts made by the husband’s father were made early in a long marriage. The use to which those gifts were put rendered them of fundamental importance to the parties throughout the marriage. They provided the foundation for a farming business, operated as a partnership between the husband and the wife, from which the marriage derived income during its duration. They provided land upon which the parties home was situated and, thus, a place to live
114. Particularly relevant for the purposes of this case, the Full Court went on to say:
There can be little doubt on the evidence that each party contributed to the maximum of their respective capacities and abilities within these various roles. There was a genuine mutuality to their relationship and it, and the financial decisions and arrangements within it, were subject to the ‘unstated assumptions’ that devolve from that mutuality
115. In Wallis, the court concluded that the evidence supported a finding that the husband’s contribution should be assessed as greater than that of the wife’s and, after reviewing a range of comparable decisions, concluded that the parties’ contributions were properly assessed ‘in the proportion of 57.5% to the husband and 42.5% to the wife.’
(Footnotes omitted)
When making a decision pursuant to s 79 of the Act, the “broad brush”, as opposed to a mathematical, approach is well established: Perrin & Perrin (No 2) [2018] FamCAFC 122 at [57]–[58].
When making an adjustment pursuant to s 79(4)(d)/75(2) of the Act, the real impact or value of the adjustment in money terms is ultimately the critical issue, not its expression as a fraction or percentage of the overall assets: Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92 - 595 at 81,911; Adair & Adair [2019] FamCAFC 70 at [66]; Simons & Simons [2020] FamCAFC 128 at [18].
Counsel for the husband contends for a one-pool, or global approach, whereas counsel for the wife proposes a two-pool approach in order to separately consider superannuation and non-superannuation assets.
While either approach could be applied, I will apply a two-pool approach having regard to the fact superannuation comprises about a third of the overall assets and resources, and there is an inversion of interests across the two classes. By this I mean, the husband controls the majority of the non-superannuation assets and the wife controls the majority of superannuation assets. By adopting a two-pool approach, I can more accurately consider the effect of the Orders on the parties in a real sense.
BACKGROUND
The parties met in 2007. Both were living in Sydney in separate rental accommodation. In mid-2007, the husband relocated to Canberra.
Prior to Cohabitation
In December 2009, the husband acquired a property at B Street, Suburb C in the Australian Capital Territory (“the Property”) for $364,000. This was funded from savings, a First Home Owner’s Grant of about $10,000 and a loan of $292,051 (being the Mortgage Loan Account).
As at January 2010, the husband had about $45,000 in the …03 Offset Account.
In August 2010, the husband attended an Owner Builder’s License Course.
The husband began renovating the Property soon after he purchased it.
In the about eleven months between acquiring the Property and the start of cohabitation, the husband undertook a range of renovation tasks as set out in paragraph 12 of his affidavit. One of the tasks refers to the removal and disposal of 21 large trailer loads of rubbish. The husband said in his oral evidence the wife “rarely” assisted with this task. The wife contends she made a more sizable contribution to this aspect of the work and was also involved with planning and design.
In her oral evidence, the wife agreed, during 2010:
(a)She was working in Sydney as a professional full time;
(b)The parties travelled to City H for about ten days in late 2010;
(c)She worked in City X for about six weeks;
(d)The parties travelled to the City J for about two weeks;
(e)She visited Canberra on about 10 weekends, and that during her visits, the parties were engaged in social activities and outings such as going to markets;
(f)Two other friends of the husband assisted the husband with the work. She did not dispute that “Mr K” also assisted the husband; and
(g)Each party met their own expenses, although they may have shared the cost of dinner.
The wife also gave oral evidence, which was not challenged, that the parties tended to spend one weekend per month in Canberra, one weekend in Sydney, one weekend away together, and one weekend apart. Counsel for the husband’s cross examination of the wife about the weekend together in Canberra was to the effect that the parties were engaged in outings and activities, such as going to markets. The effect of such line of questioning was that few, if any, renovations were undertaken on what might be called the “Canberra weekend”. The husband was also working in external employment full time that year. On that basis, the time on the weekends the husband was available to attend to renovations must have mainly occurred on the weekend the parties spent apart.
Even with the impacts on the available time for the husband to undertake renovations, accounting for his employment and weekend schedule, I find it is probable that the husband undertook more activities related to the renovations of the Property during 2010 than the wife.
Late 2010: Cohabitation
The parties commenced living together at the Property in late 2010. At that time:
(a)The husband owned the Property with a value of $410,000, subject to a home loan in the sum of about $275,000 (i.e. net about $135,000), cash of about $30,000, superannuation of about $41,000, a Motor Vehicle 1 and a motorcycle. In his oral evidence, the husband conceded he also had a credit card liability of about $2,500. The husband also had a furnished house including a fridge, washing machine and bed; and
(b)The wife owned a motorcycle, personal effects including a laptop, superannuation of about $15,700, savings of about $24,000, and a couch.
As at the date of cohabitation, the husband was working full time as a professional and earning about $102,000 per annum. The wife began working full time in early 2011 for the Employer L and was earning about $94,000 per annum.
2011 to 2012: Both Parties Work Full Time
It is common ground that from early 2011 to May 2012, the wife paid the husband $200 per week for rent. From May 2012, by agreement, the wife ceased paying rent and directly contributed to the mortgage. During this period, both parties worked full time, earned approximately similar incomes, and shared the household expenses.
July 2012: Financial Agreement
In July 2012, the parties entered a Financial Agreement pursuant to s 90UC of the Act (“the Agreement”).
The Recitals to the Agreement are relevantly:
S. As at the 21st day of June 2012 [the husband] had made contributions to the [B Street, Suburb C] property totalling 88.80% as follows:
T. As at the 21st day of June 2012 [the wife] had made contributions to the [B Street, Suburb C] property totally 11.20% as follows:
Total Contributions for both [the husband] and [the wife] are $255,708.17
U. [The wife] and [the husband] both intend in the future to contribute to the mortgage secured against the [B Street, Suburb C] property ("the [B Street, Suburb C] mortgage") and to make other contributions to the [B Street, Suburb C] property. They intend to discharge the [B Street, Suburb C] mortgage as soon as possible.
V. [The wife] and [the husband] acknowledge that they may each make unequal contributions to the [B Street, Suburb C] property.
W. [The wife] and [the husband] agree to be individually and personally responsible for maintaining a record of their individual contributions to the [B Street, Suburb C] property. In addition they agree to be individually and personally responsible for obtaining and retaining source documentation to verify their individual contributions including but not limited to receipts, invoices, bank statements and cheque butts.
X. [The wife] and [the husband] agree that at the end of each financial year they will ascertain and agree to the respective contributions they have made to the [B Street, Suburb C] property as at that date. For this purpose [the wife] and [the husband] will exchange their records and verifying documentation of their contributions to the [B Street, Suburb C] property. [The wife] and [the husband’s] agreement will be recorded in writing, dated, signed by each of them in the presence of an independent witness over the age of 18 years and retained with a copy of this Financial Agreement.
Clause 9 of the Agreement distributes the equity in the Property in accordance with the parties’ financial contributions to it. Clauses 11 and 12 provide that each party will otherwise retain all “separate property” in their respective names.
The Agreement does not state a value for the Property, nor identify the extent of the liability. The evidence establishes that the liability was about $221,000.
Annexure A of the Agreement records the wife’s assets at $6,000, nil liabilities, and superannuation $27,446. Annexure B of the Agreement records the husband’s assets at $24,500, credit card liability of $2,500 (i.e. net non-superannuation assets of $22,000), and superannuation of $59,666. The composition and value of the assets in Annexures A and B are not disputed. I accept them as a record of the parties’ respective positions as at July 2012.
The tables in Recitals S and T of the Agreement are also said to be correct but for the omission of the First Home Owner’s Grant to the husband of about $10,000.
I find that, as at July 2012:
(a)The husband’s contributions to the B Street, Suburb C property were about $227,074 or 88.8 per cent, and the wife’s contributions were about $28,633 or 11.2 per cent. The First Home Owner’s Grant would, if included, cause these figures to alter in favour of the husband to about 89.2 per cent. A difference of 0.4 per cent is de minimis; and
(b)The other assets and resources of the parties totalled $113,112, of which the husband held about 70 per cent and the wife held 30 per cent.
The parties recorded their contributions to the Property in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (“the Excel spreadsheet”) until May 2021, which the husband updated.
By virtue of s 90UJ(3) of the Act, the effect of the parties’ marriage in April 2015 was to cause the Agreement to no longer be binding on the parties.
Neither party seeks orders that give effect to clauses 9, 10 and 11 of the Operative Terms. For example, the husband takes a one-pool approach and the wife seeks a superannuation split.
I find the parties have both departed from the intention contained in the Operative Terms of the Agreement, but adhere to the facts contained in Recitals S and T and Annexures A and B, but for the de minimis correction to Recital S.
2013 to August 2018: Husband’s further course of study and Renovations to B Street, Suburb C property
The husband ceased external employment and commenced a course of study at the M University in early 2013.
Financial contributions including savings and superannuation
The husband deposes that the costs of the renovations were “mostly” met by the parties equally. The wife deposes that the costs were met equally. Neither party was cross examined on this.
There is no dispute that, in the period of early 2013 to August 2018:
(a)Each party met their own costs of living;
(b)The wife contributed to the Mortgage Loan Account from her income; and
(c)The wife accumulated superannuation, whereas the husband did not.
The wife contends that during this period she deposited her savings into the …06 Offset Account and the …07 Offset Account.
The husband conceded in his oral evidence that the wife deposited the majority of funds into the …06 Offset Account, but said he contributed “different amounts in other ways”. He denied that the wife made all the payments to the … 06 Offset Account and the …07 Offset Account. I find it is probable the wife was the only party to contribute to the ...06 Offset Account and the ...07 Offset Account in this period as:
(a)The husband was not receiving an income;
(b)The husband redrew $64,000 from the Mortgage Loan Account, but said in his oral evidence that $16,000 was applied to relocating to the United Kingdom, from which it follows he did not apply that portion to the ...06 Offset Account or the ...07 Offset Account; and
(c)Of the $48,000 the husband redrew for his expenses, there is no evidence that he transferred that money to the ...06 Offset Account and/or the ...07 Offset Account.
Furthermore, the husband exhausted his savings such that, even if he had previously applied money to either of those accounts, it was otherwise expended.
The husband said in his oral evidence that if the wife had not been engaged in external employment in that period, the parties’ financial positon would have been more difficult. Further, he said, had the wife not been working externally he would have had “other options”, in that he could have returned to work.
The husband deposes that the wife claimed a tax rebate based on the husband being a low-income earner in the financial years ending 30 June 2016 to 2019. He deposes that the wife retained these rebates to herself other than in 2018, when the money was divided equally. The rebates were said to be around $7,000 per annum. The husband deposes that the wife did not share the rebates with him. The wife gives a different account at paragraph 144 of her affidavit and says the rebates were shared. No submissions were made about this and so the point is taken no further.
Physical labour and other work
There is significant dispute as to the extent each party provided physical labour and undertook other work associated with the renovations of the Property.
The husband deposes that he undertook a range of tasks, which are described in paragraph 29 of his affidavit. He further deposes that the wife assisted with the works listed in paragraph 29, but this was occasional and minimal. The husband says:
33. With respect to the work undertaken by [the wife], with my assistance, she:
(a) Assisted in waterproofing the bathroom and mixing tiling glue;
(b) Assisted in installation of underfloor insulation;
(c) Assisted in wall sheeting and painting;
(d) Assisted in carrying materials;
(e) Assisted in sourcing some materials and some payments to contractors;
(f) Paved a small path at the front and small area in the garden; and
(g) Maintained the vegetable garden.
The husband’s oral evidence about the wife’s involvement with the renovations was that she “rarely” assisted. He conceded that she assisted with carpeting. In relation to an issue about dividing fences, the husband conceded that the wife wrote to the ACT Government about the issue but said her efforts “were not helpful”.
The wife contends that the husband attended his office at M University five days per week in connection with his course of study. The husband said in his oral evidence that he did not attend his office other than on the rare occasion, and that he spent very little time on his Studies. The husband deposes having “onerous” responsibilities in connection with caring for N, the family dog, who experienced epileptic seizures between 2015 and 2020. The husband adduces no evidence of how he allocated his time between his Studies, caring for N, the renovations and other activities. I give little weight to the husband’s evidence that he spent little time on his Studies.
The wife contends the parties contributed equally to the renovation work. She deposes she:
(a)Maintained two large folders of research materials, drawings, costings and quotes;
(b)Kept notes of what needed to be done, and by when;
(c)Prepared detailed running sheets of the costs of materials and projected timelines for tasks;
(d)Kept photographic records of new wall frames as a reference for where drill holes for cables and plumbing should be placed;
(e)Helped the husband cut and install internal sheeting;
(f)Calculated room sizes for the purpose of cutting wall sheeting and insulation;
(g)Researched how to screed a bathroom floor, how to install timber joist flooring, and wet area construction;
(h)Attended a renovator’s forum and consulted with a carpenter about the laundry floor, which was rotten under the tiles; and
(i)Organised pluming quotes, and liaised with plumbers and bathroom suppliers.
The wife lists a number of tasks to which she deposes to having assisted the husband at paragraph 60 of her affidavit.
The wife gave unchallenged evidence that:
When it came to physical labour, I often worked longer hours than [the husband], many times until 10pm or 11pm because he needed to lay down and rest his back.
In her oral evidence, the wife conceded that the husband was “150 per cent Beyer”. That is, he worked hard and was focussed on the renovations.
The wife deposes that she was the “administrative side of the renovations”. This evidence was unchallenged.
There is no expert evidence that permits me to find that the effort and exertion by one party versus the other is reflected in the value of the property to a particular extent.
The husband’s oral evidence about the wife’s contributions to renovations was unconvincing. While conceding the wife “assisted” him, as to have taken a lesser or subordinate role, he diminished that assistance by his evidence that, “it was not helpful.”
The evidence that the husband was “150 per cent Beyer” establishes that the husband worked hard and was focussed on the renovations. However, it does not mean that he worked harder, or was more focussed, than the wife, or any more productive across the range of activities that the renovation entailed, including physical work, planning, project management, and administration. The wife’s energy and exertions towards the renovations are established through her evidence as to the tasks she did, many of which occupied the area of project management, rather than physical labour, as well as work at night and on weekends.
Findings as to the 2013 to 2018 period
In the period 2013 to August 2018, I find:
(a)The costs of the renovation materials were paid for equally;
(b)The costs of living were met, or otherwise accounted for, equally;
(c)The wife accumulated funds from income in the ...06 Offset Account and the ...07 Offset Account;
(d)The wife accumulated superannuation where the husband did not;
(e)The wife made payments to the Mortgage Loan Account where the husband did not;
(f)The parties contributed to the Property in the period 2013 to 2018 in different but real ways. Both parties applied their physical, creative and intellectual effort and energy to the renovations; and
(g)The wife’s external employment facilitated the husband ceasing his employment to work on the property and pursue further Studies.
July 2018 to April 2021: “Pause on Mortgage”
From July 2018 to April 2021, neither party contributed additional funds to the Mortgage Loan Account. Instead, the parties met the monthly payments by debiting advance payments.
August 2018 to January 2019: Further Studies
From August 2018 to January 2019, the husband relocated to the United States of America to take up a position as student. The wife remained at the Property.
The wife deposes that the majority of the renovations were complete by August 2018. She says she continued to undertake some of the remaining works while the husband was away, including installing external panels to the laundry, drainage and paving works, installing garden beds and trellises, and soft landscaping. Counsel for the husband challenged the wife by putting to her work was limited to paving, work on external panels and work on the windows. The wife maintained her evidence. Regardless, the wife continued with renovation work in the husband’s absence.
The husband returned to Australia in January 2019.
April 2019: Move to United Kingdom
In April 2019, the parties relocated to the United Kingdom, when the husband obtained employment. The Property was leased.
The husband travelled to the United Kingdom a few weeks before the wife and arranged accommodation for the parties. The wife attended to moving out of the Property. That is, each assumed responsibility for a geographic domain in facilitation of the relocation.
While in the United Kingdom, the parties lived in rental accommodation and paid the rent and other household expenses equally.
The wife took Long Service Leave from her employment with the Employer L from April to about October 2019. Once her Long Service Leave was exhausted, the wife took leave without pay from her employment with the Employer L.
On 16 January 2020, the wife obtained full time employment with the Employer O. The wife deposes that while she did not have an income, the husband financially supported her, but she was required to repay him. This was unchallenged.
Final Separation
The parties separated on a final basis on 31 December 2019, but remained living under the same roof in the United Kingdom until January 2021, at which time the wife returned to Australia.
The wife deposes:
13. At the time of separation in December 2019 my superannuation with [Super Fund D] had a balance of $198,451.88. My balance as at 5 October 2022 is $250,982.27.
14. At the time of separation in December 2019, I had savings of $49,520.37. My balance as at [the date of this affidavit is] $161,867.46, excluding the [Bank P] account and the Westpac Esaver account ending […] 08.
The wife deposes that the ...06 Offset Account and the ...07 Offset Account were accounts she operated for her sole purposes, and that the contents of these accounts were “all funds that I had deposited over the years.” The wife does not identify the account(s) in which her alleged savings of $49,520 were located at the time of separation, which is a deficit in her evidence.
Exhibit H3 establishes that, as at:
(a)1 January 2020, the balance of the ...07 Offset Account was $185;
(b)1 January 2020, the balance of the ...06 Offset Account was $38,168; and
(c)2 January 2020, a Westpac Bank Account ending …41, being an account in the wife’s sole name, records a credit balance of $4,679.
April 2020: Redraw of $90,000 from Mortgage Loan Account
On 1 April 2020, $90,000 was transferred from the advance payments on the Mortgage Loan Account as follows:
(a)$45,000 to a bank account in the husband’s sole name; and
(b)$45,000 to the ...07 Offset Account.
On 2 April 2020, the wife transferred $45,000 from the ...07 Offset Account to the ...06 Offset Account.
February 2021 to November 2021: The B Street, Suburb C Property
In about February 2021, the husband gave the tenant at the Property notice of termination of the lease at the end of the fixed term. The tenant vacated the property in May 2021.
Between 1 January 2021 and 21 April 2021, the husband transferred sums totalling $119,500 to the Mortgage Loan Account from the …03 Offset Account. After these transfers, the debit balance was $26,016 and the advance repayments were $112,935.
The husband deposes:
54. On 9 April 2021, some 14 months post-separation, I received a redundancy payment of £39,908.44 (AUD $74,117). Those funds were later transferred into my ANZ Access Advantage Account and later to the mortgage account.
55. From the redundancy payment, I purchased a [Motor Vehicle 2] in the amount of $8,000 and expenses associated with the [B Street, Suburb C] property.
56. Around April 2021, I transferred the sum of $109,500 (part of this amount being from my redundancy payment as detailed above) from the offset account to the mortgage account to offset [the wife’s] contributions to the [B Street, Suburb C] property mortgage during the marriage when I was working part-time. The mortgage account before the transfer was $135,515 and after the transfer was $26,016…
This evidence does not enunciate the source of the $119,500. I will address this further in the consideration of financial contributions below.
It is an agreed fact that after the April 2021 transfers to the Mortgage Loan Account, the parties’ financial contributions to Property were equal.
In May 2021, the husband returned to Australia.
On 25 November 2021, the husband informed the wife that he would be moving into the Property. Since December 2021, the husband has had exclusive use of the Property.
The husband deposes:
Since December 2021, I have been solely responsible for meeting the costs of the mortgage and all outgoings, including repairs and maintenance, on the [B Street, Suburb C] property. I have also been responsible for all maintenance works on the property, including gardening, repairs, maintenance, mowing, weeding, pest control, servicing hot water system, repairing taps and leaks and so on.
There is no dispute that the husband has paid the rates and insurance, and maintained the Property. I do not accept that he has paid the mortgage if “paid” means “contributed to”, because the minimum monthly payments have been serviced by drawing on the advance payments. The debit balance of the Mortgage Loan Account is currently $27, 604. That is, the debt has increased since April 2021.
The wife has not paid any further sums towards the Mortgage Loan Account since December 2021 (or indeed since July 2018), nor had the benefit of the Property since December 2021.
On 15 December 2021, the wife transferred $80,168 from the ...06 Offset Account and $815 from the ...07 Offset Account to her …07 Everyday Account. The wife’s …07 Everyday Account has a balance of $81,180. I will address the movement of these funds in the consideration of financial contributions below.
The current circumstances of the parties will be addressed in the consideration of s 75(2) of the Act below.
CONSIDERATION
What are the assets, liabilities and financial resources of the parties or either of them?
The wife contends that the Westpac eSaver Bank Account ending …08 (“the Westpac …08 Account”) should be excluded because, since May 2012 she has “treated this account as my father’s account, for my father to use when he came to Australia.” The Westpac …08 Account will be included on the Balance Sheet as it is an account in the wife’s name. The wife’s father is not on affidavit. There is no evidence to establish a constructive or express trust. The wife’s father last visited Australia in 2015 and there is no evidence he will return. The funds in the Westpac …08 Account are the property of the wife.
Item 12 of Exhibit H2 refers to the husband’s Bank Q Account ending …25. The wife asserts a value of $214. The husband asserts a value of nil. The husband’s Financial Statement asserts a value of nil and he was not challenged on that issue nor any submission made. The value of the Bank Q Account ending …25 is nil.
The Balance Sheet is thus (omitting all “nil” value items stated in Exhibit H2 for clarity):
Owner Description Value H B Street, Suburb C, ACT 725,000 H ANZ Bank Account ending …74 165 H Bank R Account ending …67 2,793 H Bank S Account ending …90 50 H Bank Q Account ending …91 187 H Bank F Account ending …03 (i.e. the ...03 Offset Account) 5 H Motor Vehicle 2 2,500 W Bank R Account ending …63 18,296 W Bank F Account ending ...07 81,180 W Bank P, Country T Account ending …60 4,965 W Westpac Bank Account ending ...41 52,442 W Westpac eSaver Account ending ...08 9,740 W U Insurance 18,000 Non-Superannuation Assets $915,323 Liabilities H Bank F Account ending …00 -27,604 Net Non-Superannuation $887,719 Superannuation Owner Description Value H Suepr Fund V 174,840 W Super Fund D 262,703 Aggregate Superannuation $437,543 The financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last‑mentioned property.
As correctly identified by counsel for the husband, there is no presumption of parity. One must consider the myriad of factors and weigh them as the evidence and authorities permit.
The parties maintained a high degree of separateness with respect to their finances. This included separateness of income and savings accounts. To the extent the parties combined their finances, it was not through the blending of monies with an ease of give and take, but rather through the deliberate, and precisely recorded, contributions to the Property which arrived at parity by April 2021.
As at April 2021, the parties’ direct financial contributions to the Property were equal.
I accept that the husband’s financial contributions were greater at the commencement of the relationship. However, his initial contributions to the Property were accounted for in the Excel spreadsheet, which recorded parity by the end of April 2021. These are the contributions also recorded in the Agreement at Recital S, and I have also considered the First Home Owner’s Grant that was omitted from the Agreement and the Excel spreadsheet.
If I were to attribute weight to the husband for his initial contributions to the Property, then I would distort the agreed fact that contributions were at parity by April 2021 by double-counting.
The husband’s affidavit suggests that he made post separation contributions of $119,500. In relation to this:
(a)I accept that the husband paid $119,500 to the Mortgage Loan Account in early 2021, and that this included redundancy money paid to him in early 2021. Given the practice of recording all payments to, or in connection with the Property, in the Excel spreadsheet, $66,000 of redundancy money has been taken into account in the calculation of parity by April 2021;
(b)There is no evidence as to the destination of the $45,000 which was redrawn from the Mortgage Loan Account in April 2020 and applied to the husband’s account. It is possible that the same sum was repaid to the Mortgage Loan Account in April 2021, a possibility that is increased by the fact that wife did not seek to treat it as a notional asset. If that was the case, then that portion of the $119,500 was not a “post separation contribution” as it was the transfer of pre-separation contributions to the Mortgage Loan Account, which had been preserved in a different account during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not a matter on which I can speculate; and
(c)There is no evidence of the source of funds used to pay the shortfall between the $119,500 less the redundancy money used as part of that payment (≤$66,000), and possibly less the earlier redraw of ≤$45,000. The shortfall is ≥$8,500.
In any event, whether or not the $119,500 comprised “pre” and/or “post” separation acquisitions, the fact remains that by April 2021 to the Mortgage Loan Account resulted in parity between the parties in relation to their financial contributions to the Property.
The husband has contributed the value of his Motor Vehicle 2 from post separation acquisitions, which is now valued at $2,500. I accept this is a financial contribution by the husband.
The husband has paid the rates and usual outgoings on the Property. I accept this is a financial contribution. However, it is balanced against his exclusive use of the Property.
The husband has arranged for the Mortgage Loan Account to be paid from advance payments in the redraw facility. The overall debt has increased.
In relation to superannuation, the wife has accumulated about $247,000 in superannuation since 2010, compared to the husband’s accumulation of about $133,840. This favours the wife.
As at 2010, the husband had savings of about $45,000. It is a common fact that the husband exhausted his savings during the period he undertook his Studies. Whatever savings he may have accumulated after that, other than money which was applied to the Property and accounted for in the Excel spreadsheet, are now negligible.
In 2010, the wife had savings of $25,000.
The wife now holds savings of $85,443 in her Bank R, Bank P and two Westpac Bank Accounts. With respect to these accounts:
(a)The wife adduced no evidence as to the value of the Bank P and Bank R Bank Accounts as at separation. The combined balances of these accounts are currently $23,261. There is no evidence about what portion of those funds were accumulated “pre” and “post” separation. Nevertheless, they are funds accumulated by the wife, as are the funds in the Westpac ...08 Account; and
(b)The balance of the Westpac Bank Account ending ...41 as at separation was $4,679. It is now $52,442. I accept this is a post separation financial contribution by the wife.
In relation to the funds that are now in the wife’s ...07 Everyday Account:
(a)As at December 2019, the balance of the ...06 Offset Account was $38,000. This is the account styled “G Account” on the transaction history. For the Reasons earlier given, I accept the wife was the contributor to the ...06 Offset Account in the period 2013 to 2018. In addition to those Reasons, the Excel spreadsheet records contributions on the wife’s side of the ledger “from [the wife’s] Renovation” Account. It is improbable that the “G Account” ...06 Offset Account was other than an account used solely by the wife. The balance of $38,000 in the ...06 Offset Account represented money saved by the wife prior to separation. That money was transferred to the ...07 Everyday Account where it remains;
(b)On 2 April 2020, $45,000 was transferred from the Mortgage Loan Account to the ...06 Offset Account and then to the ...17 Offset Account. That money remained in the ...07 Offset Account until December 2021 when the wife transferred it to her ...07 Everyday Account where it remains. The conservation of property is a category of financial contribution.
I find that financial contributions favour the wife for which an adjustment of five per cent will be made.
The contribution (other than a financial contribution) made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last‑mentioned property.
In this case, neither party conducted their case on the basis being that each party contributed to the accumulation of assets by virtue of providing moral or emotional support to the other, such that the financial contributions which occurred during the relationship should be balanced by the facilitative contributions of a non-financial kind.
For the Reasons I have already given:
(a)The husband made greater contributions to the physical labour and associated tasks of home renovation in 2010. This favours the husband; and
(b)The parties contributed in various, but equal, ways to the physical labour, project management, and administrative, creative and intellectual tasks of the renovations in 2013 to 2018.
I find that non-financial contributions favour the husband for which an adjustment of 2.5 per cent will be made.
The contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or parent
The wife contends that she undertook the majority of the homemaker responsibilities. The husband contends that the tasks were shared equally. The wife conceded in her oral evidence that while she undertook many indoor domestic duties, the husband attended to tasks such as lawn mowing. Parenting contributions do not arise. No adjustment is made for homemaker contributions.
The effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party to the marriage
Neither party’s earning capacity will be effected by any proposed order.
The matters referred to in subsection 75(2) of the Act so far as they are relevant.
There is no probative medical evidence to support the husband’s contention about his health and its impacts on his future needs, including his working capacity.
The husband is nearly 52 years of age and the wife is 44 years of age. Based on age, the husband is more likely to retire before the wife.
The husband is employed full time as a professional for the Employer W and earns about $137,200 per annum gross. The wife is employed full time as a professional for the Employer L and earns about $152,000 per annum gross. During the remainder of their working lives, both can accumulate superannuation and other wealth at about the same rate given their similar incomes.
For the Reasons set out below, I will make a superannuation splitting order. This remedies the disparity of superannuation between them. However, I accept that the husband has less time to accumulate more superannuation and other savings.
No other factor pursuant to s 75(2) of the Act is relevant.
I find that the age disparity favours the husband for which a 2.5 per cent adjustment will be made.
Should there be a superannuation splitting order
This question is answered in the affirmative.
The wife holds about 65 per cent of the aggregate superannuation, compared to the husband’s about 35 per cent. However, the husband holds 79 per cent of the non-superannuation assets, compared to the wife’s 21 per cent. The wife will not be able to access superannuation for another about 23 years.
It is appropriate that she should be given a reasonable opportunity to rehouse herself in her own home from non-superannuation assets, consistent with the opportunity afforded to the husband.
The husband contends that, by making a superannuation splitting order, his cash position would be reduced and that this may make it more difficult for him to retain the Property. I do not accept this contention. There is no evidence of the husband’s borrowing capacity.
CONCLUSION
For all the Reasons given, I am satisfied that it is just and equitable in all the circumstances to make orders to equalise the parties’ superannuation and non-superannuation assets.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and twenty-five (125) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Eldershaw. Associate:
Dated: 31 January 2023
0
6
0