ENGEL & STARLING

In this matter before Judge Brown, the applicant sought an order for the sale of a property. The proceedings concerned a small property pool, and the court was required to assess the parties' contributions and consider the factors outlined in sections 90SM(3) and (4) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to determine what orders would be just and equitable.

The court was tasked with determining how the parties' respective contributions should be assessed within the context of a limited asset pool and, crucially, what final property settlement would be just and equitable given the circumstances. This involved a careful balancing of the parties' financial and non-financial contributions and their future needs.

Judge Brown dismissed the applicant's application for sale of the property. Instead, the court ordered that the applicant transfer his interest in the property to the respondent at his sole expense within thirty days. The respondent was to refinance the mortgage on the property into her sole name and indemnify the applicant against all future liabilities associated with the property. Each party was to retain their respective possessions, including furniture, vehicles, savings, and superannuation, with specific items of tools and equipment to be delivered by the respondent to the applicant. The court also made provision for the Registrar of the Family Court to execute documents if either party failed to comply with the orders.