Canning and Peel and Anor

This matter concerned an application by the applicant and respondent for final property settlement orders and maintenance orders pursuant to the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The parties had lived together in a de facto relationship from 18 August 1994 until 9 August 2011, and both were ordinarily resident in Victoria during that period. B Pty Ltd was joined as the second respondent. The court was required to make declarations regarding the existence and breakdown of the de facto relationship, and to make orders for maintenance and property settlement.

The court was asked to determine the legal issues surrounding the division of property and the provision of maintenance between the parties to the de facto relationship. This included assessing whether the proposed orders were reasonably necessary or appropriate to effect a division of property, and whether any debts would remain unpaid as a result. The court also needed to ensure procedural fairness for B Pty Ltd and to be satisfied that the orders were just and equitable, taking into account the relevant matters under the Act.

By consent, the court declared the existence and breakdown of the de facto relationship and ordered that the orders were for maintenance and final property settlement. B Pty Ltd was joined as the second respondent. The court declared that the orders were reasonably necessary or appropriate for property division, that debts would not remain unpaid, that B Pty Ltd had received procedural fairness, and that the orders were just and equitable. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $100,000 as a maintenance payment, which was to be regarded as full satisfaction of previous interim maintenance orders. The respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant a total sum of $6,000,000 by way of final property settlement, with specific payment dates and amounts detailed. Various other orders were made concerning the transfer of property, discharge of mortgages, and the responsibilities of each party pending full compliance with the property settlement payment. The court also noted that the parties intended the orders to determine their financial relationships and avoid further proceedings, and that they had agreed to enter into a Part VIIIAB Financial Agreement consistent with these orders.