East and Berry

This matter concerned proceedings between Ms East (the Wife) and her husband (the Husband) before Judge Neville. The dispute revolved around the division of property. The Wife filed written submissions in reply, arguing that the Husband was improperly attempting to make submissions based on evidence not led or to lead new evidence through his submissions, which she contended was an unreasonable and unfair approach given the protracted nature of the proceedings and the impossibility of her testing such evidence.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the Husband was improperly attempting to lead evidence through his submissions, specifically concerning the health and bank accounts of his mother, an alleged letter dated 2 July 2014, the nature of a joint account, hearsay opinion evidence from his former solicitor, and a company valuation. The Court also had to consider the Husband's proposed orders, including his ability to afford a particular property, the basis for a proposed 50/50 split, the utility of valuing household goods, and the appropriateness of agitating a superannuation splitting proposal at this late stage.

Judge Neville considered the Wife's submissions regarding the Husband's attempts to introduce evidence through his submissions. The Court noted that the Husband referred to matters for which no evidence had been led, such as the state of his mother's health or bank accounts, an alleged letter, and a company valuation. The Court also addressed the Husband's claims regarding missing bank accounts, noting that the relevant accounts were in evidence. The Court rejected the Husband's proposed orders, finding that Order 1 was not supported by evidence regarding his ability to afford the property and that there was no reason to delay its sale. Order 2 was deemed inconsistent with other proposed orders. Order 3 was considered to have no utility. Order 4, concerning superannuation splitting, was rejected as it was contrary to the Husband's earlier submissions and would likely necessitate an adjournment for proper evidence. Order 5 was rejected as it was inconsistent with the evidence and pleaded orders, unfairly proposing a division of only the Wife's assets.