Cook and Cook

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Cook (the applicant wife) and Mr Cook (the respondent husband) sought to resolve their property proceedings. The matter had been part-heard over 14 days in July 2009, with subsequent proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria involving the appointment of a receiver and liquidator and the sale of assets. The parties engaged in lengthy negotiations to determine the remaining net asset pool available for division, with both parties having a full understanding of the commercial and financial issues involved, and having received advice from their legal practitioners, including Senior Counsel.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed consent orders represented a just and equitable settlement of the parties' financial relationship, pursuant to section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved assessing the parties' understanding of the settlement, the adequacy of disclosure, and the legal capacity of each party to enter into the orders. The court also considered the discharge of existing injunctive and cost orders, and the finalisation of all extant applications.

Justice Young, having presided over the initial part-heard proceedings and being familiar with the facts and subsequent events, accepted assurances from counsel and the husband's solicitor that the husband had the legal capacity to enter into the orders, that proper disclosure had been made, and that both parties fully understood and accepted the settlement as just and equitable. The court noted that the parties had also entered into a section 90D Financial Agreement regarding future spousal maintenance. The court declared that the consent orders represented a just and equitable determination of the remaining and available property.

By consent, the court ordered the discharge of all existing injunctive orders against the husband and discharged all previous cost orders, including reserved costs. The orders provided for the wife to receive a specific payment from E Pty Ltd, which was to be treated as spousal maintenance, and for the wife to receive a base amount from the husband's interests in two superannuation funds, the G Fund and the H Fund, calculated in accordance with the *Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001*. The parties were to transfer certain assets and liabilities, including a timeshare and utility accounts, and the wife was to renounce her entitlements in specified companies, trusts, and joint ventures. The orders also stipulated that each party would retain possession of their respective property not otherwise dealt with, be solely liable for any liabilities encumbering that property, and that any joint tenancies were severed. The parties also agreed to a Personal Insolvency Agreement for the husband. All extant applications were dismissed, and the parties' financial relationship was intended to be finally determined.