DENMEAD and DENMEAD

[2016] FCWA 56

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: SUPRESSED

CITATION: DENMEAD and DENMEAD [2016] FCWA 56

CORAM: THACKRAY CJ

HEARD: 9 & 10 DECEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 11 JULY 2016

FILE NO/S: PTW 2725 of 2014

BETWEEN: MS DENMEAD

Applicant

AND

MR DENMEAD
Respondent

Catchwords:

PROPERTY SETTLEMENT - The parties agree on a division of assets in proportions 75:25 in favour of the husband - The husband claims that the wife has failed to disclose assets, including money received from a small business - Insufficient evidence to support a finding that the wife failed to disclose assets - Orders for the disclosed property to be divided in the agreed proportion based on the disclosed asset pool - Husband given time to make the required payment, failing which the home is to be sold.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr Hedges

Respondent: Self Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant: Young & Young

Respondent: Self Represented Litigant

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

The limited issue

1I am required to resolve a dispute between [Ms Denmead] (“the wife”) and [Mr Denmead] (“the husband”). The parties agree that their property should be divided 75:25 in the husband’s favour. The only issue is whether the wife made a full disclosure. If I find she has more assets than disclosed, it is agreed they should form part of the “pool” to be divided.

The known assets and liabilities

2I find the known assets and liabilities to be as follows:

ASSETS	HUSBAND	WIFE
[Property A]	195,000	195,000
[business]	21,204	21,204
Land in [Country T]	2,000
Bank account	1,000	2,000
Household contents	15,000
Wife’s superannuation	9,020
TOTAL ASSETS	232,204	229,224
LIABILITIES
Mortgage on [Property A]	(40,500)	(40,500)
Business loan	(22,500)	(22,500)
[S] loan	(4,200)	(4,200)
Credit card debt	(4,000)
TOTAL LIABILITIES	(71,200)	(67,200)
TOTAL NET ASSETS	161,004	162,024

3On this basis, the assets are worth $323,028 net. If there are no undisclosed assets, the wife would be entitled to property to the value of $80,757 net. If, as agreed, she keeps the business, and assumes responsibility for the business loan and the S loan, and the husband keeps the house and takes responsibility for the mortgage, the husband would have to pay the wife $78,729 to bring about the proposed division.

4The wife’s Papers for the Judge suggested the payment to be made by the husband would be only $70,100. This was calculated by use of figures different to those set out in the table. One of the points of difference related to the figure to be ascribed to the business loan. The wife’s Papers for the Judge assumed that the total debt associated with the business was $48,600 (which included the $8,400 S liability), whereas the total of the two business liabilities in the table above is $53,400. I was not told how the figure of $48,600 was calculated; however, it seems the business debt at the time of trial was greater than it was at the time of separation. Given the decision I have reached about the treatment of liabilities incurred following separation, and given the wife has had the benefit of the income of the business since the separation, I intend to proceed on the basis that the business loan should be brought to account at only $40,200 (i.e. $48,600 - $8,400).[1] Accordingly, the amount payable to the wife to bring about a 75:25 division is $75,129, which I would round down to $75,000.

Findings about the known assets and liabilities

[1] I assume the calculation in the Papers for the Judge was made by reference to [57] of the wife’s affidavit of 3 April 2014. Although that affidavit was not relied upon, the affidavit stated that the balance on the loan at that time was $40,267. See also page 8 of the husband’s affidavit of 3 July 2014. Although page 8 was also strictly not in evidence, pages 7 and 9 of the same document were in evidence.

5The parties were largely in agreement about the known assets and liabilities. I therefore need give only brief reasons concerning the makeup of the table above.

Wife’s bank account

6The wife said that she was holding $2,000 in her bank account on trust for her son, but it transpired that the money represented social security to which she was entitled, albeit the payment related to her son. Those funds belong to the wife and are therefore in the table.

Wife’s land

7There was no valuation of the wife’s small plot of land in Country T. The wife said it was worth only $2,000, whereas the husband believed it to be worth $5,000. The husband acknowledged that the issue was “petty”, and said in closing that he was “not interested in it”, and had never had it valued. I have therefore included it at a value of $2,000.

Wife’s legal fees

8I have not included the wife’s liability of $30,000 incurred to meet her legal fees (on which she had expended a total of $45,000). Costs issues will be dealt with after delivery of this judgment.

Post-separation liabilities

9Counsel for the wife opened his case on the basis that any liability incurred after the separation should be ignored. It was only after he had opened that agreement was reached that the property should be divided 75:25. In these circumstances, I have ignored liabilities incurred after the separation. I have excluded the additional $22,500 which the husband has run up on credit cards, but I have included the $4,000 it is agreed was owing at the time of separation. On the same basis, I have ignored the wife’s credit card debt of $6,650 and the “negative equity” of $4,605 she has in a [Car A] purchased after separation. I have also ignored the money the parties received from the sale of motor vehicles after the separation.

Background to the dispute about undisclosed assets

10The husband is 69 and the wife is 45 years of age. They met in Country T in June 2000, and were married there in July 2002, after periods of cohabitation. There are no children of the marriage, although the wife has two sons from a previous relationship, who were aged about 12 and 5 at the time of the marriage. The husband also has two adult children from a previous marriage.

11The husband was made redundant from his employment in April 2001. He has not worked since (apart from the work he performed in the business). He commenced receiving a disability pension in February 2002. Since that time, the husband’s capital resources (including his redundancy payment and superannuation) have been whittled away. The wife says the husband wasted his money on alcohol and gambling, but it is unnecessary for me to make a finding about this given the agreement about the 75:25 division.

12The parties separated in November 2013, after the husband left the wife a note saying “OUT THIS WEEKEND JUST FUCK OFF!! ‘BITCH’ THAT MEANS LEAVE!”.[2] The parties had been leading separate lives for a few months before the separation, during which time the husband said he was subjected to “mental domestic abuse”. The wife described the husband as a “violent and intimidating man” who was “domineering” and “quick to anger”. I record these claims because they are potentially relevant to the husband’s assertion that the wife is an untrustworthy individual, who had “a long term plan to scam right from the day we met”.

[2] In his oral evidence, the husband denied that he wrote the note, although he acknowledged the words were his.

13At about the time the parties started living together in 2001, the husband advanced monies to the wife to buy a home for them in Country T, which was required to be registered in the wife’s name alone. The wife says it cost about A$45,000, whereas the husband says it was about 1.2 million [Country T currency], which he said was the equivalent of about A$54,000. Three motorcycles (which were occasionally hired out) and a [vehicle] were also purchased.

14The parties lived in the house in Country T for not more than a year, prior to moving to Australia. The wife sold the property, the motorcycles and the [Car B] with the husband’s agreement. She claims that the proceeds of sale were “in the main” placed in a bank account in her name in [City B Bank]. The wife deposed to the fact that the authorities would not allow large sums of money to be taken out of Country T, but claimed that the account had a debit card which enabled the withdrawal of funds in Australia. The wife also claimed that some of the funds from the sale of the property were used for their expenses during their trips back to Country T.

15The husband claims that the wife sold the property within three days of suggesting to him that the house be put on the market, and that settlement occurred three days after that. I am by no means satisfied that the settlement occurred as quickly as the husband claims, but in any event he said, “I strongly suspect now that given the speed of the sale and settlement that this was a prearranged sale that I was totally unaware of”. The wife said that she received about A$45,000, but in her oral evidence, she acknowledged that she made this assertion by reference to the first entry in the passbook for the Country T bank account where most of the funds were deposited. It transpired that the first passbook available was not, in fact, the first passbook for the account, but in any event, the opening balance in that passbook was just over 1 million Country T currency. The wife calculated she had received about A$45,000 by using an exchange rate of 23 Country T currency to the dollar.

16The husband said in his trial affidavit that the wife told him she sold the property for approximately 1.8 million Country T currency, or approximately $82,000, but that he had to take the wife’s word about this because all the documents were in [another language]. However, in an earlier affidavit, the husband said the wife told him that the sale price was approximately $67,000. He sought to explain away the discrepancy by saying he had miscalculated the exchange rate. In his oral evidence, the husband also said the 1.8 million sale price included an allowance for the Car B and the motorcycles, as they were sold as “a package” with the house. He says that “the actual sale price could possibly have been more than she revealed”.

17In December 2011, the parties commenced a business in [Town B]. The wife ran the business, although the husband says that he helped out. I accept that the husband took some cash at the end of each week (as he did not want a wage) and the wife took about $700 per week for living expenses. This business became their only source of funds, save for the husband’s modest pension.

18After the separation, the husband prevented the wife from withdrawing money from the business account without his signature. Thus, while money was coming into the account from sales paid by EFTPOS, the money could not be withdrawn without the husband’s agreement. As a result of the husband’s failure to sign cheques, the wife had to use her credit card to meet the cost of supplies and other expenses associated with the business. She was effectively forced to operate on a cash basis, which she says resulted in turnover decreasing, as most people wanted to pay by EFTPOS or credit card. She claimed that there were insufficient funds from people who paid in cash to meet all of the bills. Eventually, after taking legal action, the wife was able to secure the husband’s signature to some cheques. She continued to retain cash in order to meet wages of casual staff and buy fresh produce.

19During the disagreements between the parties about these matters, it seems the wife informed her customers that the EFTPOS facility was not working. This caused the husband to paste a sign in the shop window saying, “OUR EFTPOS ISN’T REALLY DOWN! I JUST WANT YOUR CASH SO I CAN RIP OFF MY HUSBAND AND BUSINESS PARTNER!!”. In his oral evidence, the husband acknowledged that he had written the note, but denied putting it in the window. He did not explain how the note might have come into the wife’s possession, and it clearly reads like a note intended to be displayed to customers.[3]

[3] I was taken to part of the husband’s affidavit of 3 July 2014 in cross-examination, and that part of the affidavit became an exhibit. I was not taken to the last page of that affidavit, in which the husband admitted he did post a notice about EFTPOS in the shop window. Nothing turns on this in any event, given the view I have reached about the husband’s credibility.

20Although the business had initially done well, its turnover has since decreased. I accept that there were a number of reasons for this, including the disputation between the parties, the need to take cash only for a period, increased competition and a declining economy. The business is now operated by the wife as a sole trader.

Assessment of the husband’s credibility

21The assessment of credibility is of real significance, given that reference to the documents does not make out the husband’s claims about hidden money and assets.

22The husband’s credibility might, at first glance, appear of minor importance, given there is no assertion that he has failed to disclose assets. However, his evidence and submissions demonstrated a prodigious capacity to draw unsubstantiated conclusions and to be suspicious about matters for which there was a reasonable and rational explanation. The husband has a manifestly contemptuous attitude towards the wife, with strong racist and misogynist overtones. He regards her as a person of little worth, and her word as being of no value. My impression of the husband lends support to the wife’s assertion that he was a domineering and intimidating man. The fact that he holds such a poor opinion of her, and is so quick to jump to illogical conclusions, means that any suspicions that he holds about the wife’s conduct are not necessarily based on fact, but rather may simply reflect his prejudices.

23It is also significant that there is no evidence that the husband had any concerns about the whereabouts of the money that he now suspects has been hidden until around the time of the separation (at the earliest). This is of significance, especially as a major element of his claim relates to the whereabouts of the proceeds of sale of the property in Country T that was disposed of near the commencement of the relationship. I am not persuaded that he believed the money was sitting intact in the account in Country T, and that it was only after these proceedings commenced that he discovered it was not still in the account.

24Overall, I felt I could not rely on all of the husband’s testimony, which I consider was skewed with a view to trying to protect what remains of his assets.

Assessment of the wife’s credibility

25It was difficult to assess the credibility of the wife, especially because English is not her first language and she had to give her evidence with the assistance of interpreters from the telephone interpreter service. Furthermore, many of the important matters about which she was cross-examined occurred many years ago, and it was entirely understandable that she would not have much, if any, recall of those matters.

26Making all of those allowances, I was nevertheless not entirely convinced that all of the wife’s evidence was truthful. For example, I was not sure whether I should believe what she said about her occupation at the time she met the husband. However, I can understand why she may not have wanted to be frank about that topic, especially in the presence of her “adopted sister” who was in court throughout the hearing. I was also a little doubtful about aspects of her evidence concerning the extent to which the income of the business was disclosed. Overall, however, the evidence did not come close to the level of persuasion needed to satisfy me that the wife had wilfully concealed assets. I was also not persuaded that the wife had not made a reasonable effort to obtain relevant documents, noting that many of them were quite historic by the time of trial, and related to transactions overseas.

27In arriving at my assessment of credibility, I have not overlooked the inferences the husband asked me to draw arising from the letter the wife sent to the Australian Embassy in 2012, and from her dealings with her “one-time best friend” (which it has to be noted was based on an unsworn, unauthenticated document). I have also not overlooked the fact that the wife’s profile on a dating site claims she has an income of $100,000 to $150,000 per annum. I also have not overlooked the fact that the wife may have been mistaken in asserting that funds in her bank account in Country T were withdrawn from ATMs in Australia.

The allegedly undisclosed assets

28Although my assessment of credibility sounds the death knell for the husband’s case, I will nevertheless make some brief observations about assets said not to have been disclosed.

Other land in Country T

29The husband claims the wife owns farming land in her village in Country T. The wife’s evidence was a little unclear, but as I best I understand the position, she has a one-fifth interest in a very small plot of farming land. I accept she derives no income from it, as the property is worked by relatives. In any event, in the absence of any evidence (save for the wife’s statement that land in Country T is cheap), I cannot ascribe any value to this property.

30I accept the wife’s evidence that another piece of faming land, which the husband referred to in his cross-examination of her, is owned by the wife’s sister.

Wife’s jewellery

31The husband claims that during the relationship, he bought “gold jewellery” for the wife on an ongoing basis, which was to be a “future investment”. He alleged that the wife took all the jewellery when she left the home, but had since told him that she sold it in [City B] in about September 2013 for $25,000. The husband said that he was unaware of where those funds went, and noted that no disclosure had been given.

32To support his allegations, the husband annexed to his affidavit valuations of two gold/diamond rings obtained in 2000 and 2002. One was valued at $3,000 and the other $1,200; however, the certificates indicate that the valuations were based on the “retail replacement value for insurance purposes”. The husband also attached to his affidavit a copy of a photo on Facebook of what appears to be a chunky gold necklace. There is no evidence to show it is anything more than costume jewellery.

33The wife did not disclose ownership of any jewellery in her Financial Statement, and the husband did not cross-examine her about what had become of the items he mentioned in his affidavit, nor did he suggest a value for them. In the absence of any challenge to the wife, and in the absence of any evidence of market value, I am unable to take the matter further.

Gold

34The husband attached to his affidavit three receipts which were said to be for “gold” acquired in Country T. He implied that the wife had the “gold”. The amounts shown on the receipts are not entirely clear, but seem to be 12,000 (or 72,000) Country T currency, 12,371 Country T currency and 44,500 Country T currency. The wife was not challenged about what had happened to the “gold”. In any event, the amounts mentioned are very modest, given the exchange rate.

Money in bank accounts in Country T

35The husband argued, in effect, that the wife salted away the proceeds of sale of the property she owned in Country T which I have mentioned above. The husband’s evidence about this property varied from affidavit to affidavit, but there is no doubt he was fully aware the wife was selling the property, and that the proceeds had been placed in bank accounts in Country T. The husband’s evidence about how much was available from the sale had the air of an ex post facto reconstruction, and there was no evidence (other than his own recollection of what he was told) that the property sold for as much as 1.8 million Country T currency. I consider it more likely that the amount received was slightly in excess of 1 million Country T currency, which would mean the property probably sold for around what was paid for it. This is more likely than the property having appreciated substantially in value in a very short period, which is what the husband would have me accept. (There was no evidence of how much the motorcycles or the Car B cost.)

36The husband’s suspicions about how much was received from the sale were fuelled by the fact that the passbook which would have shown how much was in the wife’s account when it was opened was not disclosed. Given that the account was opened in around 2002 or 2003, the surprising thing was not that the first passbook book was unavailable, but rather that the books from 2003 onwards were available. The wife’s evidence was that the bank retained the first passbook after it was filled. Even if that is not correct, no credible explanation was given by the husband as to why the wife would have told him she received 1.8 million Country T currency from the sale and then only deposited around 1 million in the account. If she had set out to deceive the husband by siphoning off some of the proceeds, she could have easily lied about how much she received, since the husband admitted he had no way of knowing whether what she told him about the sale price was correct.

37The husband’s suspicions about the bank account were further aroused by the fact that, when inspecting the books that were disclosed, he came across a withdrawal of 800,000 Country T currency on 24 October 2006. This convinced him that the wife was siphoning off funds into some other account, but it transpired that this withdrawal occurred while both parties were visiting Country T. It also occurred long before the parties separated, and there is no reason to consider that the wife was putting money away in the expectation that the marriage would come to an end. Although the husband and wife now have no reliable recollection of what became of the money when it was withdrawn, it seems to me entirely possible that it was simply expended by them during their time in Country T, or alternatively some of it was brought back to Australia. The husband and wife had been whittling away the funds the husband had in Australia, and although the husband was reluctant to acknowledge it, they needed access to funds while they were in Country T.

38In considering the likelihood of the wife siphoning off funds from the Country T account, it should be noted that while funds were withdrawn from that account, some funds were also deposited. The husband did not suggest in his evidence that he was the one who deposited those funds. Had the wife been trying to hide money, it is not likely she would have been putting funds into an account the existence of which was known to the husband. Additional funds would have been more likely to have been deposited into the secret spot where the husband believes the wife has money hidden. The movement of monies into and out of the account (and the acknowledged existence of at least one other account the wife had in Country T) suggests to me that this was no more than a working account and that some money was moved around. In my view, the husband is now simply annoyed that the money has all gone, just as the money he had in Australia is now all gone, save for what is represented by the equity in Property A.

39Some of the money available from the proceeds of sale of the property in Country T was not “missing”, because the wife acknowledged that she used it to assist members of her family, including one larger payment for the benefit of a brother who was terminally ill in 2010. The husband said that he “loved this family as my own and I wanted to help them”. There is no reason for these monies, openly paid to the wife’s family, now to be “added back” into the asset pool.

40In rejecting the assertion that the wife has hidden money in Country T, I should also record that I consider improbable the husband’s claim that the wife could now obtain a statement from the bank in Country T for a passbook account dating back some 12 years.

Money earned from the business

41The husband claims that the wife has been salting money away from the business. He relied on a ledger which he submitted showed that over a 22-month period, there was $300,000 less deposited in the bank account than had been earned in the business. This does not, of course, prove that there is $300,000 hidden. I accept the wife’s evidence that she had to pay cash to a lot of the casual staff because they refused to work on any other basis. The wife’s evidence, which I accept, was that she would have a number of people working for her at any one time. Other cash funds were spent on supplies for the business, and also in meeting the parties’ own living expenses. The husband himself admitted that some of the “missing” money would have been spent on bringing the wife’s family to Australia for them to work in the business (and help out in the home while the wife was working in the business). Indeed, the husband claimed that the wife had relied heavily on her family from Country T when operating the business. He said:

Since its inception 8 or 9 family members of hers that I am aware of have been brought out from [Country T] to work in the [business] on a cash basis whilst on tourist visas. She pays all the travel expenses including airfares and visas from business earnings. This is illegal and she knows it. I told her it was frequently. However she continues to do it.

42While the Australian Taxation Office has undertaken a form of audit of the business, and accepted that the books are in order, I accept there is at least a possibility that the business has earned cash income which has not found its way into the accounts. That does not mean, however, that any of that cash is now available for distribution. The books disclose only a modest profit which, when making allowance for the deduction claimed for depreciation, would have given the wife little to live on, given that she had to rent when she left the home.

$38,000 taken from the business

43The husband also asks me to infer that the wife has hidden $38,000 drawn from the business account in a five-week period. The $38,000 comprised cheques (jointly signed by the parties) of $13,000 on 10 April 2014, $10,000 on 1 May 2014, $10,000 on 29 May 2014 and $5,000 on 20 June 2014. I accept the wife’s explanation that these withdrawals were used to meet business and household expenses, and that the reason the money came out in large lumps was related to the struggle the parties had been having about control of the business account. The husband’s analysis of the account from which these funds were withdrawn does not acknowledge that apart from the amounts coming out of the account, there were regular monies being paid into the account. Most of these were described as “BWMAS” payment, which I accept is related to the EFTPOS facility used by the business. The account only had a balance of $13,310 prior to the withdrawals mentioned above, and $1,163 remained in the account after the last of the withdrawals. The fact that the business had a balance of around $13,000 prior to the cheques coming out was almost certainly related the fact that monies had been accumulating from EFTPOS payments, and that the money could not be used to pay the associated business expenses because the husband would not allow that to occur until after the wife commenced proceedings on 4 April 2014.

Conclusion and orders

44As I have not been persuaded there are any undisclosed assets, the husband will be required to pay the wife $75,000 in accordance with the calculation made earlier in these reasons. I accept that the husband is unlikely to be able to raise this amount and that he will therefore have to sell the home. As I persistently explained to the husband during the trial, while the sale of his home is regrettable, homes are commonly sold in order to bring about a just and equitable settlement.

45If the home does have to be sold, I should record that at the conclusion of the trial, counsel indicated that the wife would be favourably inclined to withdraw her caveat over the title, given the possibility that the existence of the caveat may reduce the prospects of the parties obtaining the best possible price.

46I propose to give the husband a generous 90 days in which to find the money prior to the property having to go on the market. The husband should realise, however, that the proceedings are not yet completed, as issues of costs may arise following delivery of this judgment. If the wife applies for costs, and is successful, then his overall liability will exceed $75,000.

47Although the wife proposed that she indemnify the husband in relation to the business loan if she is unable to secure his release from liability, this would leave the husband exposed in the event that the wife defaulted and was unable to afford to make the payments. In any event, I doubt that the bank would permit the loan to become unsecured, and it is not appropriate for the home which is to become the husband’s asset to be used as security for the borrowing for what will become the wife’s asset.

48For these reasons, I propose at the expiration of 14 days from today to make the orders set out below. I have not made the orders with immediate effect, as the details of the proposed orders have not been canvassed with the parties, and they therefore should be given time to make further submissions about the proposed form of orders. The submissions should be made in writing and filed and served within 14 days. As the husband is a self-represented litigant, I should make clear that this is not an invitation to make submissions about the substance of the orders but rather about their form only.

1.Within 90 days, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $75,000.

2.Within 90 days, the husband shall procure the wife’s release from any liability in relation to any credit card in the joint names of the parties.

3.Forthwith upon compliance by the husband with Orders 1 and 2, the wife shall:

a.transfer and assign to the husband at his expense all of his interest in [Property A], being the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume … Folio … (“[Property A]”); and

b.withdraw at her expense the caveat she has registered against the title.

4.Simultaneously with payment of the $75,000 and the transfer of [Property A] to the husband:

a.the husband shall secure the discharge of the mortgage registered against the title to [Property A] or provide to the wife a release from the mortgagee of all liability pursuant to the mortgage;

b. the wife shall provide to the husband a release of all of his liability pursuant to the business loan account …, and in the event the wife is unable to secure the husband’s release, she shall use the $75,000 to discharge the loan forthwith upon payment; and

c.the wife shall provide to the husband a release from the lender of all of his liability pursuant to the [S] loan, and in the event the wife is unable to secure the release, she shall use the $75,000 payment to discharge the loan forthwith upon payment.

5.The husband shall within 21 days transfer and assign to the wife all of his interest in the business, including the registered business name and any associated bank account.

6.The husband and wife are restrained, and an injunction is hereby granted restraining them, from increasing the amount owing on any credit card for which they have joint liability and from encumbering their interest in [Property A] prior to the payment of the $75,000 or prior to the settlement of the sale in the event the property is placed on the market pursuant to these orders.

7.Save as herein provided, each party shall retain as their own property any assets currently registered in their name or in their possession and the wife shall retain her superannuation.

8.In the event the husband does not comply with Orders 1 and 2 within 90 days, the husband and wife shall do all such acts and things as are necessary to sell [Property A] and the proceeds of sale shall be disbursed in the following manner:

a.in payment of the costs of sale;

b.in adjustment of rates and taxes (provided that the husband shall be solely responsible for all payments that should have been made for rates and taxes from the date on which judgment was reserved);

c.in discharge of the mortgage registered against the title (provided that the husband shall be solely responsible for all payments that should have been made on the mortgage from the date on which judgment was reserved);

d.in discharge of the business loan (provided that the wife shall be solely responsible for all payments that should have been made on the loan from the date on which judgment was reserved);

e.in discharge of the [S] loan (provided that the wife shall be solely responsible for all payments that should have been made on the loan from the date on which judgment was reserved);

f.in discharge of any credit card liability for which the parties are jointly liable up to the sum of $4,000;

g.in disbursement of the balance so as to bring about a 75:25 division of the assets and liabilities calculated by reference to the table below.

9.The husband shall use his share of the balance of the proceeds referred to in Order 8(g) to discharge any further credit card liability for which the parties are jointly liable (above the sum of $4,000 referred to in Order 8(f)).

10.There be liberty to apply in relation to the sale of [Property A] and in relation to implementation of this order, including in relation to calculation of the division referred to in Order 8(g).

11.If either party seeks an order for costs, they shall within 28 days file a Form 2 and written submissions not exceeding five pages in support of their application. The respondent to the application for costs shall file and serve submissions in reply not exceeding five pages within 21 days of service of the Form 2 application. The applicant for costs shall file and serve submissions in reply not exceeding three pages within 14 days of service of the responding submissions (or notify the Chief Judge’s Administrator in writing if it is not proposed to file submissions in reply).

12.The application and response be otherwise dismissed.

Asset pool at date of settlement of sale of home for purposes of division
ASSETS
[Property A]	Gross price on sale
Wife’s [business]	42,408
Wife’s land in [Country T]	2,000
Husband’s bank account	1,000
Wife’s bank account	2,000
Husband’s household contents	15,000
Wife’s superannuation	9,020
TOTAL ASSETS	To be calculated
LIABILITIES
Mortgage on [Property A]	Balance owing at settlement (excluding any arrears incurred after 10 December 2015)
Wife’s business loan	(40,200)
Wife’s [S] loan	(8,400)
Joint credit card debt	(4,000)
Costs of sale of [Property A]	As applicable
Outstanding rates and taxes for [Property A]	As applicable (excluding any amount representing the period after 10 December 2015)
TOTAL LIABILITIES	To be calculated
TOTAL NET ASSETS	To be calculated

I certify that the preceding [48] paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment delivered by this Honourable Court

Associate