Delany and Delany
[2011] FMCAfam 1063
•29 July 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DELANY & DELANY | [2011] FMCAfam 1063 |
| FAMILY LAW – Property – significant income disparity between parties – adjustment under s.75(2). |
| Family Law Act 1975, s.75(2) |
| Applicant: | MS DELANY |
| Respondent: | MR DELANY |
| File Number: | PAC 5811 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Henderson FM |
| Hearing dates: | 20, 21 June 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 21 June 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 29 July 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr I. Bullock |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Lloyd of Senior Counsel |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | BARKUS DOOLAN KELLY |
ORDERS
The husband and the wife to forthwith pay from the monies held in a joint account with St George Bank the following:
(a)The current debt for Capital Gains Tax owing by each totalling $149,968;
(b)The unpaid fees of Ms K in the sum of $4,239;
(c)The unpaid fees of Mr K in the sum of $2,750;
(d)The [omitted] Credit Union Joint Debt in the sum of $4,368.
(e)The balance then remaining to be used in reduction of the mortgage in respect of the former matrimonial home at Property [B] which mortgage is for these purposes fixed in the sum of $143,942.
Upon payment of the balance of trust funds in reduction of the mortgage, the wife to be thereafter responsible for the payment of any outstanding mortgage, rates, taxes and the like in respect of the former matrimonial home. When the total of the mortgage is discharged pursuant to these orders the wife to be responsible for any increase in the mortgage as determined by the carrying out of Order 1(e) herein.
The husband to forthwith place on the market for sale his interest in the properties at Property [L], Property [C] and Property [P] (the investment properties).
In respect of the investment properties the husband to advise the wife in writing of the selling agent, provide a copy of the first page of the contract for sale in respect of each property, advise of the anticipated sale price, advise the wife when contracts have been exchanged, and advise the wife in writing when contracts are to be settled, provide to the wife a copy of the settlement sheet in respect of the sale of each of the properties and the details of the account into which any excess funds from those sales are placed forthwith.
The husband to be responsible for the payment of all mortgages in respect of the investment properties which is a total for these purposes of $761,875.
In the event that upon the sale of the investment properties the mortgage has exceeded $761,875, the husband to be responsible to pay any amount above that from his resources.
From the sale of the investment properties and after payment of the mortgage at a figure of no more than as set out in Order 5, agent’s commission, solicitor’s costs and usual conveyancing fees, the net proceeds be disbursed as follows:
(a)The sum of $102,974 by way of Capital Gains Tax or other sum as the ATO deems payable;
(b)In the event the Capital Gains Tax payable on the sale of the investment properties by the husband is greater than $102,974 the parties to pay such amount equally;
(c)Monies required to discharge the then current mortgage in respect of the former matrimonial home calculated in accordance with Order 1(e) and upon discharge the husband to transfer all his right title and interest in that property to the wife at her expense;
(d)Cash sums of $26,200 being part of the further property adjustment due to the wife pursuant to these Orders and $28,000 being a sum necessary to discharge the lease on the wife’s motor vehicle;
(e)$207,167 or such lesser amount as may be required to comply with Orders 7(b) and/or 7(c). This amount is referable to the wife’s current credit card debt;
(f)The balance to the husband.
Within 28 days of the date of these orders in accordance with section 90MT(1)(a) of the Act whenever a splitable payment within the meaning of section 90ME of the Act becomes payable to the husband from his interest in the [A] Superannuation Savings Trust Plan number [omitted] the wife is entitled to a base amount in the sum of $100,000 and there is a corresponding reduction in the entitlement the husband would be entitled to receive but for this order.
These Orders are binding on the Trustees, their heirs, executors or assignees of the Trustees of the husband’s superannuation fund.
With respect to personal items the wife is to make available to the husband the items attached to his document marked husband’s Exhibit 4 within 28 days of these Orders.
Thereafter the parties be entitled to all assets in their name including but not limited to businesses, motor vehicles and superannuation, monies in bank accounts, personal items and the like.
Both parties have liberty to apply to restore the matter to the list on 7 days notice in relation to enforcement of machinery orders and/or in the event that Orders 3, 4 and 7 have not been complied with within 4 months of the date of these Orders.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Delany & Delany is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 5811 of 2009
| MS DELANY |
Applicant
And
| MR DELANY |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The matter of Delany was a property hearing commenced on 20 June 2011 and finalised on 21 June 2011. Mr Lloyd, SC appeared for the respondent husband and Mr Bullock, solicitor for the wife.
The parties agreed that their respective contribution based entitlement to the assets of their marriage expressed as a percentage for their past contribution was equal. This was a sensible and a practical approach in a marriage of some 30 years.
The parties were married [in] 1978 and separated on 31 October 2009. They have one child now aged 29. On any version of the facts the husband was the primary income earner and the wife the parent and homemaker.
Thus, the dispute I am to rule upon is twofold. First, what is the net value of the matrimonial assets available for distribution including their nature and kind and whether there ought be a further adjustment to either party under section 75(2) from their equal entitlement to their current assets.
Part of the evidence before the Court was Court Exhibit 1 being the husband’s first balance sheet of assets and liabilities tendered at the commencement of the hearing. Court Exhibit 2 was a final statement of joint and agreed assets and liabilities.
The wife filed her amended application on 10 June 2011 together with a financial statement and affidavit.
The wife’s exhibits were:
Wife’s Exhibit 1, a statement of bank accounts of her father. It became clear during the hearing that the wife’s father had provided $54,000 to her since separation fro her support.
Wife’s Exhibit 2, a letter to Doolan Wagner dated 21 May 2010.
Wife’s Exhibit 3, a schedule of the effect of the orders as sought by the wife.
For the husband he filed an amended response on 15 June 2011, an affidavit on 10 June 2011 and 15 June 2011 and a financial statement dated 10 June 2011.
His exhibits were:
Husband’s Exhibit 1, a joint valuation prepared by Ms K in relation to the value of the wife’s business.
Husband’s Exhibit 2, an affidavit of Ms K sworn 17 June 2011 in relation to capital gains tax to be paid on properties sold.
Husband’s Exhibit 3, an affidavit of Ms K sworn 20 June 2011 in relation to capital gains tax to be paid on the future sales of properties.
Husband’s Exhibit 4, the husband’s schedule of effect of the orders as sought by him.
The husband and wife were cross-examined.
The wife accepted Ms K’s valuation of her business, [H] Proprietary Limited, at $44,749.
The husband and wife accepted Ms K’s evidence in relation to the now due capital gains tax and that to be paid in the future and the valuations of all remaining items of real and personal property.
There was one area of disagreement in Ms K’s first affidavit being the income she asserted the wife should earn from her business given the hours she worked approaching 70 hours a week.
The wife did not accept that the business was capable of generating the income Ms K ascribed of some $112,000 or so per annum gross and as set out at page 13 of Ms K’s report.
This is an important aspect of the case. There is as I see it a significant income disparity between the parties.
The Chronology
Husband is aged 58, the wife 57.
The husband purchased land before the parties were married. They jointly purchased property in [N] in 1997.
They were married [in] 1978. They sold the [N] property and bought the matrimonial home at Property [B] and sold land at [S] the husband had acquired prior the relationship.
[X], their only child, was born [in] 1982.
The husband commences working for [omitted] in 1991. He has worked in similar positions since that time earning a significant and substantial income over this lengthy marriage.
In 1997 the husband and his brother bought the property at [F].
In 1998 the husband bought the property at Property [L]. In 1999 he purchased the property at Property [D].
He purchased the property at Property [R] in 2000.
He and his brother bought a property in equal shares at Property [P] in February 2000.
The wife commenced her own business [occupation omitted] under the name of [omitted] in 2003.
In 2004 the husband purchased a property at [T].
The wife formed a company called [H] to operate her business in 2009.
For some years the wife leased part of the property at Property [L] from the husband to run her [business].
The parties separated in 2009.
The husband commenced living with Ms F with whom he still lives.
The parties sold the property at Property [D] in 2010 and the wife received $50,000 from the sale proceeds to pay her debts in June 2010.
The husband transferred his share of Property [F] to his brother for $175,000 and deposited that sum into the joint St George Bank account together with the proceeds of sale of the properties at [T] and Property [D].
In about July 2010 there was some $377,770 in the account.
There is an issue concerning Property [P] being offered as a joint venture site for a [business omitted]. If this had occurred there would have been a significant increase in the value to $1.4 million. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The husband’s partner, Ms F, purchased her property in [omitted] for $850,000. The husband is not on the title but admitted in cross-examination that he is a co-guarantor for that loan and contributes to the payment of the loan as he lives in the property.
There was little factual dispute between these parties which again was to their credit.
Going back to the question of the parties’ income. Even if I accept the wife has a capacity to earn some $112,000 per annum from her business, this is a level of income the wife has never achieved in six years of running her business. Thus even if it was the income earning capacity of the wife she has never achieved it.
The husband’s income for the financial year ended 2011 was $320,000 being a base salary of $268,000 and a bonus of $48,000. Even if I accept Ms K’s opinion of the wife’s income earning capacity from conducting her business the husband still earns three times that of the wife.
The wife’s actual income is significantly less than $112,000 per annum. Her average net weekly income is at present $261 plus payments for her car lease, expenses such as petrol and running costs. Her real gross income over the years of her business is some $30,000 to $35,000 per annum at a time when her business was operating well.
The income the wife has earned from this business has always been modest. The wife’s income from the business and its turnover are very different figures. The highest gross turnover she achieved was in 2009 of $176,000. The wife was paying rent of $22,000 per annum staff and equipment costs from that gross figure before any income was distributed to her.
Even if the wife was able to earn gross some $30,000 to $35,000 per annum the husband’s income is 10 times higher than the wife’s.
As I see the evidence, the husband at best earns three times the wife’s income if I assess her income at $112,500 or, at worst, 10 times if I assess her income at $30,000 to $35,000 per annum. That this lower figure represents the reality of the wife’s income earning capacity is supported by the husband’s own evidence and set out in the parties’ material.
The husband makes significant complaint in his affidavit filed 3 June 2011 of the wife’s spending habits and income she earned. For example, paragraphs 52 and 56 through to 63. His complaints may be justified. If I go to paragraph 52 of that affidavit:
“During the marriage, [Ms Delany] and I incurred significant credit card debts on numerous credit card facilities in our individual names. One of the contributing factors to the breakdown of our marriage was [Ms Delany’s] excessive spending on credit cards as a result of purchase of luxury goods for herself, French cosmetics, jewellery and clothing”.
Paragraph 51.7:
“I performed three consolidations of debt to pay off credit card balances throughout the marriage by increasing the home mortgage and the mortgage on investment properties. I have applied $50,000 from my Citibank credit card and other funds re-borrowed and re-draw facilities on the home and investment properties to discharge the wife’s credit card debt. It was often the case that we were forced to rob Peter to pay Paul. [Ms Delany’s] overspending was a considerable source of animosity between myself and herself and it caused problems in our relationship and we settled”.
This evidence not contested by the wife. It supports the husband’s position that he financially maintained the home, the investment properties from the income he received throughout the relationship with little or no help from the wife. It may well be that the wife spent excessively but it is also clear her income was modest and not at a level to assist the husband to maintain the home or investment properties mortgages or outgoings or pay off credit card and other debt.
This incapacity of the wife to maintain herself from her income during the marriage as is evident in the affidavit material has continued since separation. The wife has borrowed or been lent or gifted some $54,000 from her aged parents since separation despite having received some $50,000 as a partial property distribution in 2010 to pay her necessary expenses. Thus the wife’s incapacity to support herself from her income continues.
Although I accept the wife has received this money from her parents this is not a matrimonial debt. I accept morally the wife feels obliged to repay this money to her parents when she can.
The wife and husband each have difficulty managing money. The wife has credit card debts of $207,000 and the husband debts of $249,000. This is an untenable position for either of them to be in the long term. Both may be spendthrifts. However each has agreed they made an equal contribution to their current assets despite evidence in the affidavits of the husband receiving inheritances which he used towards maintaining the matrimonial property, his superior income earning capacity, several consolidations of the wife’s debts throughout the marriage and what he would regard as the wife’s reckless indifference to the management of money.
The husband was clearly the financial driver of the relationship. As he said in his material, on three occasions he has consolidated liabilities to pay off excessive credit card debts, has still managed to buy and sell various properties throughout the marriage at a profit and made no poor investments.
The husband invested substantially in property either alone or with his brother. Since separation he has sold two properties – Property [T] and Property [D] with the wife receiving $50,000 from that sale. The net remaining from those sales together with the funds from the transfer of [F] to his brother results in a sum of $377,000 in a St George Bank account. These monies will be required to pay capital gains tax on the above sales amounting to $149,000.
The husband still has three properties to dispose off: Property [C], Property [L] and Property [P]. The husband has superannuation of some $473,000 and the wife some $77,000. I will set out the assets and liabilities shortly. The husband lives with his partner in a home recently purchased by her for whom he was a guarantee and he pays a portion of the mortgage as rent. He has no legal title but has secure accommodation.
The parties agree that the wife is to retain the matrimonial home and each agree this home has a capacity to provide sufficient accommodation to set up her [business]. I accept the space at the home for the [business] is not at the level provided for at Property [L]. That property is no longer available for use by the [business] as the property is to be sold.
Additionally the wife’s parents live next door to the former matrimonial home thus there are many sound reasons why the wife wishes and the husband agrees for her to retain this property.
In the past the wife’s business had been paying rent for Property [L] of between $20,000 and $22,000 per annum. In 2010 the business paid rent of $10,000 and from that time and continuing no rent has been paid by the business.
There was an argument raised that as Property [L] is to be sold and the wife is to run her [business] from home the rent that she was otherwise paying would now form part of her income, thereby increasing her income. That argument failed to impress me as the wife has not paid rent for about 18 months and there is no extra income to be added to the business turnover. The evidence did not support the submission made.
Much time was spent by the parties’ legal representative outside of Court dealing with the morass, the only word I can use, of figures which make up the assets, liabilities, superannuation and the like. No doubt endeavours were made to achieve an equitable distribution of liquid and non-liquid assets and debts between the parties including enabling the parties to discharge their burdensome and extraordinary credit card debts.
I can divine in the two documents produced by the husband being part of Husband’s Exhibit 4, his schedule of effect of orders sought and Wife’s Exhibit 3, the effect of the orders she sought, an endeavour by the legal teams to craft for their client’s the maximum for each of the liquid assets whilst at the same time trying to do justice and equity between them. This is not a matter where one party took a stance that was unreasonable. I found it a difficult matter to deal with even when so many facts were agreed between the parties due to the number of assets, the level of debts and that a large part of the assets base is superannuation.
The effect of the husband’s document is that the wife will be paid a significant amount from his superannuation but will be left with significant debt, being her credit card debts. The wife would receive enough money to pay off the current mortgage over the matrimonial home and keep the other assets she has in her possession.
The effect of the wife’s document is that she will receive the majority of the liquid assets and some $100,000 of the husband’s superannuation, leaving him with the balance of assets.
The task for me is to how to divide the assets to enable the wife to maintain the home as each wish to do, ensure a reduction in the parties significant debts, determine whether I should make an adjustment to one or other under section 75(2) of the Act and in so doing ensure I have made orders that are just and equitable?
Assets
The assets are these:
ASSETS Matrimonial home at Property [B] $600,000 Property [L] property $682,500 Property [C] property $416,000 Husband’s 50% share in Property [P] $443,000 Moneys in St George Bank $377,770 Wife’s savings in St George Bank $248 Wife’s Subaru motor vehicle $28,000 Wife’s [omitted] business $44,749 Shares in the wife’s name $1,872 Husband’s Ford motor vehicle $20,000 Husband’s [omitted] motorcycle $3,500 Shares in the husband’s name $400 Husband’s bank account $2372 TOTAL $2,620,411 Superannuation Wife’s [M] superannuation policy $66,097 Wife’s [F] superannuation policy $11,878 Husband’s [A] superannuation policy $473,394 TOTAL $551,369 TOTAL ASSETS $3,171,780
In relation to household contents, each party wishes certain items. I will do this and as such have not included these items in the assets and liabilities.
This makes the total assets available for distribution $3,171,780.
I will use the one pool approach in this matter due to the age of the parties. The husband is 58, the wife 57, and each is approaching an age where they will be able to access their superannuation.
Liabilities
The liabilities are these:
LIABILITIES Loans in respect of the former matrimonial home $143,942 Wife’s credit cards $207,167 Husband’s credit cards $242,334 National Australia Bank loan in the husband’s name in respect of the 3 remaining investment properties $761,875 Loan on the wife’s car $30,866 Joint debt in [omitted] Credit Union $4,368 Lease on the husband’s Ford motor vehicle $20,853 Anticipated Capital Gains Tax once the husband sells the three remaining investment properties, as assessed by Ms K $102,974 Unpaid accounts to Mr F $1,750 Unpaid accounts to Ms K $4,239 Unpaid accounts to Mr K $2,750 Unpaid Capital Gains Tax on the sold properties $149,996 TOTAL LIABILITIES $1,673,104
When I deduct these liabilities from the gross assets available I am left with a net amount of $1,498,676 of which $551,396 is superannuation, the remainder cars, cash, property and the like.
The husband’s primary position was that on the evidence of Ms K the wife has a capacity to work and support herself and thus more or less there should be an equal division of the net equity.
The husband conceded there may be a small adjustment required under section 75(2) to the wife in order for me to make a just and equitable order given the difference in the party’s income earning capacities.
I accept the wife has a capacity to work. However, I do not accept that this capacity either by reason of her age, health or for any other reason such as personality is at a level enabling her to support herself adequately or that she has she ever had such a capacity.
The weight of the evidence is against such a finding.
I do not accept the wife’s business is at such a volume or turnover that it could generate an income of $112,500 per annum. The business was commenced some seven years ago and has never provided the wife or the family with anything like that income. It presently provides to the wife net $261 a week plus payment of car lease, petrol and some other expenses associated with the business. It is a modest income which pays part-time [staff] in her business, a bookkeeper, the lease and maintenance on her car, and otherwise provides a small disposable income to herself and director’s fees of some $5000 per annum.
Even if I was to accept the wife’s business still had a capacity to pay to her as income, the 2009 rent of $22,000 per annum this would only result in a possible income approaching $40,000 per annum at the very best.
When I look at the figures reproduced by Ms K from the wife’s financial material and as set out in appendix 1.1 of her first affidavit it is clear the wife has never earned a significant income from this business. The best year of turnover by the business was 2009 when the gross turnover was $178,000. In that year all the expenses doubled as well. In order for the business to produce this increased turnover expenses were also increased resulting in a modest net gain in income to the wife that year.
In circumstances where the husband’s income currently is approaching $320,000 per annum and has been the real and only support for this family the significant disparity in income earning capacity is real and has been so for the whole of the marriage and continuing.
I accept the husband’s evidence when he said that his wife said to him on many occasions her money she earned was to spend as she saw fit. Perhaps the wife was too extravagant. Her parents have been supporting her since separation as the husband did during this long marriage. That dependence will not change in the future, even if the wife is able to maintain her business and some income by running her [business] from her home.
I must make an adjustment to the wife under section 75(2) from an agreed position of an equal contribution if only on the basis of the significant difference in income earning capacity of three times less than the husband on his best case if the wife’s income is $112,500 per annum, or on the worst case ten times less if the wife’s income is $30,000 per annum.
10% of the parties net assets is $149,867, 20% is $299,735. 20 % of the net equity is $299,735 some $20,000 less than one year of the husband’s income. That analysis alones demonstrates the significant income disparity.
The wife has earned at best $30,000 to $40,000 per annum, that is, the $15,000 per annum she discloses in her financial statement together with car lease payments, fuel and allowing for a capacity in the past to pay rent. That equates to 3% of the net equity available for distribution. The husband’s income of $320,000 is approaching 21% of the net equity available for distribution.
Whatever way I look at it the husband’s income earning capacity is significantly superior to the wife’s. Not only that, but once these proceedings are over and by the orders I propose to make to ensure as best as I can the parties are debt free as soon as possible, the husband will have the entirety of his income available to him yearly as he will be free from payment for any debts of the wife and his own significant credit card debts.
What adjustment should I make to the wife due to the significant disparity in the parties income earning capacity?
I have formed a view that the wife is entitled to an adjustment of 12% having regard to the matters under 75(2) being her modest income earning capacity when compared with her husband’s significant income earning capacity demonstrated over a long marriage and the standard of living the parties had enjoyed during the marriage which the wife is unable to maintain.
On these facts the husband’s position that the assets should be spilt equally with a small percentage adjustment to the wife under section 75(2) cannot be sustained on the evidence.
What will the effect of such an adjustment be on the current split of assets and liabilities?
The net assets are $1,498,676. 62% is a figure of $929,179 to the wife and $569,496 to the husband
The wife seeks to retain Property [B] worth $600,000; her business, $44,749; her car, $28,000; superannuation, $77,975; shares, $1872; bank account $400; $50,000 cash which each received at the conclusion of the hearing being a total of $802,996.
I have determined she is entitled to $929,179; therefore an adjustment of $126,183 must be made to her from assets in the husband’s control or name.
The husband submitted any adjustment to the wife come from his super entitlement and not from cash. He says this is proper as the majority of liquid assets he will be left with is superannuation which is presently worth $473,000.
In order to determine whether the husband or wife’s approach is the correct one, I must determine what the husband’s ultimate position will be.
It is clear to me that the husband is the only party who will be able to clear the parties’ debts, that is, the credit card debts, capital gains tax, loans on cars and to the credit union and bank mortgage. He is the only one with the capacity to do this. He has the financial nous, the wherewithal and the energy necessary to produce the money by sale of assets and the like sufficient to clear debts in his and the wife’s name.
These debts are wife’s credit cards, $207,167; his are $242,334; Capital Gains Tax on the sold properties $149,986; Capital Gains Tax payable on the sale of the three remaining properties, $102,974; Credit Union debt, $4368; lease on wife’s car $30,866; lease on husbands’ car $20,853; mortgages on the investment properties $761,875; mortgage on the matrimonial home $143,942; the unpaid accounts for Mr F,
Ms K and Mr K of $1752, $4239 and $2750 respectively. These debts total $1,673,104.
The husband has assets being Property [L], $682,500; Property [C], $416,000, his share of Property [P], $443,000; cash in the bank, $377,700; a total of $1,919,270.
Subtracting the net debts from the gross assets there may be an amount of $246,166 left in the husband’s hand once all these debts are cleared.
Of that possible figure $100,000 has already been distributed to the parties being $50,000 each thus the reality may be a cash amount to the husband after clearing all debts of $196,166 which includes the $50,000 he has already received.
The husband’s position will be cash $196,166; moneys in his bank account $2372; shares $400; car $20,000; bike $3500; superannuation $473,394 a total of $695,832.
The adjustment I have found to the wife is $126,200 of assets in the husbands’ possession.
I will accede to the wife’s orders that $100,000 of the husband’s superannuation be transferred to her. That would leave a cash adjustment to her of $26,200.
Is such a result just and equitable? I find it is. The wife will ultimately have $600,000, being the home; car $28,000; business $44,746; her superannuation of $78,000, superannuation in the husband’s fund of $100,000, shares of $1872, moneys in the bank $400 and the cash she obtained at the conclusion of the hearing of $50,000 together with a further cash amount of $26,200 totalling $929,179.
To bring into effect the orders I propose to make I will order the husband to clear the wife’s debts after the sale of his investment properties being fixed at the level or less as at today’s date.
After the further adjustment to the wife of $26,200 the husband will have $169,800 in cash, bank account of $2372, shares of $400, car $20,000, bike $3500 and his reduced super of $373,396 making a total rounded up of $569,000.
The wife will have in total assets of some $360,000 greater than the husband of which the majority is the liquid assets.
That figure is but some 13 months of the husband’s gross yearly income. In all the circumstances and for the reasons above I find these orders are just and equitable. Both parties will ultimately be debt free. Both have some cash now. The husband will be in a position to retain for himself the total of his income and has a capacity in 13 months after discharging his debts to have earned the difference between he and the wife’s’ share of their property.
The husband has his significant income of some $320,000 per annum and the wife at best an income of some $30,000 to $40,000 per annum.
I have in reality left the husband with all the work to do to sell the property and clear the debts. I am satisfied he will do that. He is a businessman. It is in his interest to sell these properties for their maximum, clear the debts as soon as possible as he knows that interest is only accruing on these debts. In order to ensure that this occurs in a timely fashion, and given the uncertainty of the property market, I have given both parties liberty to restore the matter to the list if the orders have not been brought into effect within four months or if there is some difficulty with carrying the orders out in a machinery provision sense to which I was not privy or did not perhaps understand.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and ten (110) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Henderson FM
Date: 7th October 2011
0
0
1