CALDER & CALDER

In *Calder & Calder*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for an interim distribution of $350,000 from the asset pool to enable him to borrow that sum. The wife sought an alternative order that both parties be permitted to borrow $350,000 each, secured against Property A, with these sums to be treated as an "add back" to their respective property interests at the final division. The wife also sought an updated valuation of livestock, with the husband to bear half the cost only if the new valuation differed materially from the existing one.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to permit the interim borrowing of funds from the asset pool, the terms upon which such borrowing should occur, and the necessity of obtaining an updated valuation of livestock. The court was required to determine if the asset pool was notionally sufficient to accommodate these interim distributions, despite the lack of readily accessible funds and the need for further borrowings or overdraft extensions.

Justice Berman reasoned that the total asset pool was notionally sufficient to allow for the interim distributions, with any sums advanced to be adjusted at the conclusion of proceedings. The court noted that the parties' agreement to treat these advances as "add backs" mitigated concerns about the precise valuation of assets or the profitability of farming enterprises. Regarding the livestock valuation, the court ordered that the wife bear the initial cost, with the husband to reimburse half only if the updated valuation showed a material difference. The court also made orders regarding the borrowing of funds, requiring both parties to sign necessary documents to enable the husband to borrow $350,000 and the wife to borrow $193,839, or further agreed amounts, through an extension of the farming partnership's overdraft or by borrowing against Property A and/or Property C.

The court ordered that the husband and wife sign all necessary documents to enable the husband to borrow $350,000 and the wife to borrow $193,839, or further agreed amounts, by increasing the farming partnership's overdraft or by borrowing against Property A and/or Property C. The parties were also ordered to instruct a valuer to update livestock valuations, with the wife to bear the initial cost and the husband to reimburse half if the valuation showed a material difference. The wife's applications for dismissal of the husband's application and for leave to cross-examine an expert were dismissed, and each party was ordered to pay their own costs.