Close and Beake and Anor (No.2)

This case involved an application by the Applicant Wife against the First Respondent Husband and the Second Respondent (whose role is not specified in the provided text) concerning the division of property. The proceedings were heard in the Family Court of Australia by Judge Lapthorn.

The court was required to determine the just and equitable distribution of property and liabilities between the parties, including the allocation of various assets such as real estate, shares, bank accounts, jewellery, and superannuation entitlements. The court also needed to address the liabilities incurred by each party and the potential for superannuation splitting, as well as the transfer of specific scholarship fund benefits. Furthermore, the court had to consider provisions for default in payment, including the appointment of a receiver and manager for certain companies and trusts, and the security interests to be granted to the Applicant Wife.

Judge Lapthorn declared that it was just and equitable to make orders for the alteration of property rights. The orders provided for the Wife to retain specific assets, including her interest in Property A, household items, bank accounts, shares, jewellery, and superannuation. The Husband was to retain his interests in Company F Pty Ltd, Company G Pty Ltd, The Investment Trust, his sole name bank accounts, household contents, and jewellery. Each party was to be responsible for liabilities incurred in their own name, with provisions for indemnification. The court also ordered a superannuation splitting arrangement for the Husband's entitlements in Super Fund T in favour of the Wife, and the Husband was to transfer his interest in certain scholarship funds to the Wife. A significant cash sum was ordered to be paid by the Husband to the Wife as property settlement, with detailed provisions for default, including the appointment of a receiver and manager over "The Beake Group" entities and the granting of a security interest to the Wife. The First Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs on an indemnity basis.