Deane and Tennant (No 2)

This matter came before Hogan J concerning an application and a response filed in April and May 2020 respectively. The dispute involved various financial and property matters between the parties, including the valuation of a property, the operation of businesses, and payments related to the JobKeeper Payment Scheme.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the terms of communication between parties regarding property valuation, the sharing of costs for an updated valuation, the management and disposition of funds from specific businesses and properties, and the payment of business expenses. Additionally, the court needed to address the notification requirements and suspension of payments related to the JobKeeper scheme, as well as the payment of arrears and future income from livestock and fruit harvests. The court also considered amendments to existing orders concerning the husband's personal drawings and the inspection of documents.

Hogan J made a series of orders aimed at clarifying and regulating the financial arrangements between the parties. These included provisions for parties to communicate information relevant to a property valuation, with the costs of the valuation to be shared equally. The court ordered that all funds received from specified businesses and properties, including rental income and livestock sales, be paid into a joint bank account. Amendments were made to existing orders regarding the payment of business expenses, requiring the husband to provide invoices and adhere to a waiting period before payment, and stipulating that payments be made by bank transfer. The court also detailed the process for notifying each other about the receipt and cessation of JobKeeper payments, and the subsequent suspension or resumption of certain existing orders. Specific orders were made for the payment of arrears and future income from harvests, and for the husband's personal drawings to be the higher of the JobKeeper payment or $500 per week. Finally, the court ordered that legal representatives undertake inspection of relevant documents by a specified date, and dismissed the application and response, reserving costs.