BURKETT & NOVACK

In the matter of Burkett & Novack, heard by Judge Harland, the dispute concerned property settlement and maintenance between a husband and wife in a de facto relationship. The wife sought maintenance and costs, while both parties made mutual allegations of non-disclosure regarding assets.

The court was required to determine the wife's application for maintenance, considering the threshold requirements under section 90SF of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and to address the wife's application for costs. Additionally, the court had to make orders regarding the division of property and the indemnification of debts.

Judge Harland dismissed the wife's maintenance application, finding that while her financial circumstances were modest and the husband had a higher income, she had not adequately established that she was unable to support herself by reason of her age, health, capacity for employment, or other adequate reason, as required by section 90SF(1). The court noted that maintenance is not awarded as punishment or restitution and that misconduct is irrelevant to such claims. Regarding costs, the court ordered that written submissions be filed by both parties before a determination was made. The court also made orders for the division of certain assets, including funds held in a business account, personalty, and superannuation, and directed the Registrar to execute documents if necessary to give effect to the orders. The respondent husband was ordered to indemnify the applicant wife for all debts in his name or jointly held.