Erwin & Loupe (No 5) - [2024] FedCFamC1F 802

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Erwin & Loupe (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 802

File number: MLC 14204 of 2022

Judgment of: MCNAB J

Date of judgment: 26 November 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the applicant and first respondent were in a de facto relationship – Where the applicant contends that the behaviour of the first respondent shortly prior to separation constituted wastage – Where the applicant seeks an adjustment pursuant to Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 – Where, taking all matters into consideration, the applicant seeks orders that there be an adjustment in her favour of about 75 per cent pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the third and fourth respondents previously acted for the first respondent – Where the first and third respondent were in an intimate relationship and have a child together – Where the third and fourth respondents say that they are creditors by way of unpaid legal fees and personal loans – Where the first respondent acted in a belligerent manner throughout the proceedings – Where the third and fourth respondents failed to comply with procedural orders – Where the matter proceeded undefended as against the first, third and fourth respondents.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 12.13(3)(b)

Cases cited:
Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154

Dovgan & Dovgan [2021] FamCA 306

Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93-143

Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898

Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757

Maine & Maine (2016) 56 Fam LR 500

Martell & Martell [2023] FedCFamC1A 71

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 113

Date of hearing: 12–14 August 2024

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Mort

Solicitor for the Applicant: Cahill Family Lawyers

Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: The First and Second Respondents did not appear

Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents: The Third Respondent on behalf of the Third and Fourth Respondents
ORDERS

MLC 14204 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS ERWIN

Applicant

AND:
MR LOUPE

First Respondent

CA PROPERTY PTY LTD

Second Respondent

MS GG

Third Respondent

CB LAWYERS
Fourth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MCNAB J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Order of 25 August 2023
1.The Order of the Honourable Justice McNab of 25 August 2023, insofar as it refers to the sale of the property at FF Street, Town HH, Victoria, remain in full force and effect, save that the balance of any sale proceeds are to be paid to the Applicant.

Sale of properties at 1 and 2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria and KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria
2.Not later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the First Respondent sign all documents and do all things necessary in order to sell, altogether out of court, the properties at 1 and 2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria and KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria.
3.For the purpose of the sale of the properties at 1 and 2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria and KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria:
(a)the Applicant be at liberty to select the selling agent;
(b)the First Respondent act upon such terms and conditions as the selling agent appointed by the Applicant recommends; and
(c)the First Respondent accept all reasonable recommendations made by the appointed selling agent, including the acceptance of reasonable offers.

4.The sale proceeds of the properties at 1 and 2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria and KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria be disbursed in the following manner and priority:
(a)firstly, to pay all costs and commissions associated with the sale including conveyancing costs;
(b)secondly, to discharge any mortgage encumbering the properties at 1 and 2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria;
(c)thirdly, to pay the remaining balance to the Applicant.
(i)That pending the sale of the properties referred to in Order 2 herein, the Applicant be entitled to receive and be solely entitled to all rent received and so far as is practical, will pay outstanding municipal water, rates and mortgage payments.

5.CJ Pty Ltd be appointed to handle the conveyancing of the properties at FF Street, Town HH, Victoria, 1 and 2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria, and KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria.
6.The Applicant be appointed attorney for the First Respondent, to sign all necessary sale documents.
7.The Applicant, as Attorney, be authorised to sign any relevant conveyancing document/s, in the event the First Respondent does not sign such documents, within two (2) clear business days of being requested to do so.
8.For the purpose of Order 7 herein, the Applicant will provide a copy of any necessary document to be executed by the First Respondent by email (to his legal practitioner, if engaged, or his last known email address) and by ordinary pre-paid post (to his legal practitioner, if engaged, or his last known residential address), save that a Contract of Sale may only be provided by the particulars page and signature page (not the entire Section 31 and Contract of Sale).
9.For the purpose of Order 8 herein, conveyancing documents shall include, and not be limited to, any contract, Section 32 statement, discharge of mortgage authority, transfer of land, State Revenue Duties online declaration, withdrawal of Caveat, or other document required to affect a sale of the properties referred to in these Orders.
10.Pending the sale of the properties referred to in Order 2 herein, the Applicant be authorised to nominate a Real Estate Agent to manage the current tenancy agreements in place for the properties at:
(a)1 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria; and
(b)2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria.

Sale of properties held by entities
11.Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the First Respondent, as Director of CA Property Pty Ltd ATF the BF Trust, the CH Trust, the CA Trust, CA Holdings Proprietary Limited ATF CA Holdings Trust and CA Investments Proprietary Limited ATF CA Investments Trust (“Respondent’s entities”) list all real estate in the name of the said company for sale, specifically the following properties:
(a)BF Street, Suburb BE, Western Australia;
(b)BJ Street, Suburb BH, Victoria;
(c)BK Street, Suburb BH, Victoria;
(d)BL Street, Suburb BH, Victoria;
(e)BM Street, Suburb BH, Victoria; and
(f)BN Street, Suburb BH, Victoria (“the real properties”),

The sale proceeds shall be disbursed as follows:
(i)firstly, to pay all costs, commissions associated with the sale, including conveyancing costs;
(ii)secondly, to discharge any mortgage encumbering the properties; and
(iii)thirdly, to pay the remaining balance to the Applicant.

12.In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with Order 11 herein, pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (“Cth”), the Registrar is hereby appointed as attorney to execute all deeds and documents in the name of the First Respondent’s entities and do all acts and things necessary to effect the sale of the properties referred to in Order 11 herein.
13.The First Respondent be restrained from resigning as Director or any position, or transferring any shareholding held, in any of the companies referred to in Order 11 herein, pending the settlement of the sale of the real properties.
14.The First Respondent be restrained from exercising any power of Appointment, in relation to any of the Trusts referred to in Order 11 herein, pending the settlement of the sale of the real properties.
15.CJ Pty Ltd be appointed to handle the conveyancing of the properties at BJ Street, Suburb BH, Victoria; BK Street, Suburb BH, Victoria; BL Street, Suburb BH, Victoria; BM Street, Suburb BH, Victoria, and BN Street, Suburb BH, Victoria.

Return Deposit – CK Property, Suburb U
16.The First Respondent retain for his sole use and benefit the return deposit from the cancelled purchase contract of the CK Property, Suburb U, in the sum of $396,530.

Return Deposit – Property at W Street, City X, Western Australia
17.The First Respondent retain for his sole use and benefit the return deposit from the cancelled purchase contract of the property at W Street, City X, Western Australia, in the sum of $200,000.

Motor vehicles
18.The First Respondent retain for his sole use and benefit, the following motor vehicles:
(a)Motor Vehicle 1 (Registration: …); and
(b)Motor Vehicle 2 (Registration: …).

19.For the purposes of Order 18 herein, the Applicant shall sign all documents and do all such things to transfer Motor Vehicle 2 into the First Respondent’s name, at the sole expense of the First Respondent.

Boats
20.The First Respondent retain for his sole use and benefit the two (2) vessels, presently penned in Victoria and in Western Australia.
21.For the purposes of Order 20 herein, the First Respondent shall indemnify the Applicant absolutely in relation to any outstanding liabilities with respect to same, including, but not limited to:
(a)Maritime pen fees;
(b)Registration; and
(c)Insurance policies.

Liabilities
Alleged Loan to Ms GG
22.The First Respondent shall be solely liable for and indemnify the Applicant absolutely in respect of all payments and liability whatsoever in respect of any alleged loan to Ms GG.

Respondent’s outstanding legal fees to CB Lawyers
23.The First Respondent shall be solely liable for and indemnify the Applicant absolutely in respect of all payments and liability whatsoever in respect of any alleged outstanding legal fees due and owing to CB Lawyers.

Outstanding Wages Ms CL
24.The Applicant, in her capacity as Director of Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd, shall be solely liable for and indemnify the First Respondent absolutely in respect of all payments and liability whatsoever in respect of the outstanding wages due and owing to Ms CL in the sum of approximately $54,000.

CM Financial Services Liability
25.The Applicant, in her capacity as Director of Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd, shall be solely liable for and indemnify the First Respondent absolutely in respect of all payments and liability whatsoever in respect of the outstanding wages due and owing to CM Financial Services in the sum of approximately $40,400.

Australian Taxation Office
26.The parties shall be solely liable for and indemnify the other absolutely in relation to any individual liability with the Australian Taxation Office.

Superannuation
27.Each party otherwise retain their respective superannuation entitlements.

Other property
28.Each party otherwise retain all other items of property (including choses in action) in their possession.

Caveats
29.Within seven (7) days the Third Respondent, Ms GG, on behalf of herself and the Fourth Respondent, CB Lawyers, withdraw, at her sole expense, any Caveat lodged on the Title to all properties subject to these proceedings, namely:
(a)BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria;
(b)BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria;
(c)KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria
(d)BF Street, Suburb BE, Western Australia;
(e)BJ Street, Suburb BH, Victoria;
(f)BK Street, Suburb BH, Victoria;
(g)BL Street, Suburb BH, Victoria;
(h)BM Street, Suburb BH, Victoria; and
(i)BN Street, Suburb BH, Victoria

30.In the event that the Third Respondent fails to comply with Order 29 herein, pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (“Cth”), the Registrar is hereby appointed as attorney to execute all deeds and documents in the name of Ms GG and CB Lawyers and do all acts and things necessary to effect the withdrawal of any Caveats and settlement of the sale of any of the properties referred to in Order 29, including signing and digitally authorising withdrawal of all Caveats, all transfers and mortgage discharge documentation, as required.

Costs
31.Within (28) days of the date of these orders, any application for costs made by a party be supported by a schedule detailing how the amount claimed has been calculated, and a written submission of no more than ten (10) pages setting out the reasons why the order for costs sought should be made including against whom the order should be made with the determination of costs to be determined in chambers on the papers.
32.Otherwise, all extant applications be dismissed.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.A copy of these reasons and the Outline of Case filed on behalf of the applicant shall be provided by the Court to the Legal Services Commission, Queensland in relation to the conduct of the third and fourth respondents.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Erwin & Loupe has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCNAB J

This matter involves Ms Erwin (“the applicant”), aged 40 years, Mr Loupe (“the first respondent”), aged 42 years, CA Property Pty Ltd (“the second respondent”) which the applicant is sole director and Ms GG (“the third respondent”) who has a child with the applicant and is the solicitor principal of CB Lawyers (“the fourth respondent”). Ms GG, or alternatively CB Lawyers, claim to be creditors of the applicant and first respondent, or in the alternative, just the first respondent.
These reasons should be read in conjunction with the reasons delivered for interim orders. To summarise, on the basis of non-compliance with orders, and the behaviour of the first respondent, the final hearing was conducted on an undefended basis as against the first, third and fourth respondents.
The conduct of the husband has become increasingly erratic and irrational over the course of proceedings and that conduct has substantially reduced the quantum of the value of the property pool available to the properties.
BACKGROUND
Because of the large number of properties purchased and the manner in which the first respondent conducted himself and his finances, the background is somewhat convoluted. I will attempt to focus only on the background which is relevant to the decision I have to make.
The applicant and first respondent commenced a de facto relationship in late 2008, whereupon they commenced residing together at a property which was owned by the first respondent in Victoria. The applicant alleges that shortly after they commenced living together the behaviour of the first respondent became abusive, often exacerbated by his consumption of alcohol.[1]
[1]Applicant’s affidavit filed 22 July 2024 ‘Applicant’s affidavit’ at [13].
In around mid-2010, the applicant and first respondent travelled to Suburb BH, Victoria where they purchased three blocks of land being two lots on BJ Street and one on BL Street in Suburb BH, Victoria, for $45,000, $45,000 and $50,000 respectively.
By 2011, the parties had three properties in Victoria, being BA Street, Suburb BC, KK Street, Suburb LL, and 1 BD Street, Suburb BC. The properties were managed by a real estate agent, but the applicant says she terminated the agreement and her and the first respondent began managing the properties themselves. These properties were registered to the first respondent’s name at the commencement of the relationship.
In mid-2011, the applicant and first respondent purchased an additional three blocks of land in Suburb BH, Victoria, being BM Street, BN Street and BK Street for $64,000, $62,000 and $60,000 respectively. The properties were purchased with cash and the applicant says that they were later registered in the name of companies and trusts controlled by the first respondent.
At the beginning of 2014, the applicant and first respondent purchased a vessel for $100,000.
In mid-2014, the first respondent was involved in a car accident which resulted in injuries. The applicant says that during this period, particularly the first three months, she took over his responsibilities at work. Following this accident, the first respondent purchased Motor Vehicle 1 for $250,000 using finance. The applicant states that during this time the first respondent’s use of illicit substances increased.
In mid-2014, the applicant and first respondent purchased a block of land at FF Street, Town HH, Victoria for $580,000. It was purchased using finance obtained from Westpac in the first respondent’s name.
In late 2014, the applicant and first respondent purchased the property at BF Street, Suburb BE, Western Australia for $590,000 in the name of CA Pty Ltd ATF BF Trust, which was controlled by the first respondent.
In 2015, the first respondent intended to purchase motor vehicles for the business. The applicant says that they were advised by their accountant to purchase the motor vehicles in the name of B Pty Ltd and for them to be owned by the Loupe Family Trust for asset protection. The applicant and first respondent were agreeable to this, and the first respondent resigned as trustee for the Loupe Family Trust and B Pty Ltd was appointed. They purchased eight motor vehicles, with only one motor vehicle now in the possession of the first respondent. The first respondent has repeated claims throughout these proceedings that he was removed as trustee without his consent or knowledge and that he is a victim of a complex fraud. This is denied by the applicant.
In 2015, the applicant and first respondent completed building a house on the land at 2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria for E$350,000 before purchasing the property at S Street, Suburb E, Victoria for $375,000 in the name of B Pty Ltd ATF C Trust.
In around mid-2016, the first respondent purchased a property at BG Street, Town HH, Victoria for $1,200,000. The applicant gives evidence that this was done without consultation. The applicant alleges that the first respondent was unable to obtain finance due to an outstanding tax debt and they borrowed $100,000 from her brother. This loan was eventually repaid.
In 2016, the applicant gave birth to the child of her and the first respondent (although at various junctures throughout this proceeding, the first respondent has contested his parentage), CN.
In mid-2016, Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd was established and was trustee for Loupe Trust.
In around late 2017, the first applicant says that a customer appeared at their property and was aggrieved at renovations completed for her and her son. The applicant states that the son then returned at a later time, causing damage to the house. The son was eventually convicted and sentenced.
In 2019, the first respondent had his claim heard in relation to his car accident. The first respondent received an insurance payout of $1,600,000 minus legal fees of E$100,000.

In late 2019, the first respondent purchased the applicant Motor Vehicle 3 for $170,000. He also purchased another vessel for $100,000.
In early 2021, the applicant and first respondent sold the block of land at BJ Street, Suburb BH, Victoria for $100,000. In around early 2021, the first respondent purchased Motor Vehicle 1 for $90,000 and in early 2021, made a further purchase of Motor Vehicle 4 for $145,000.
The first respondent alleges that the parties date of final separation is around June/July 2021, this is denied by the applicant.
In mid-2022, due to increasingly erratic behaviour by the first respondent, the applicant obtained a Temporary Protection Order at the instigation of Queensland Police.
Shortly thereafter, the first respondent engaged Ms GG, the third respondent, as his lawyer.
The applicant alleges that the parties separated on a final basis on 13 October 2022, and I accept this to be the case.
The applicant alleges that the reasoning for the properties being largely purchased in the first respondent’s name is due to her wages from CO Pty Ltd often being minimal and not paid on time. She says that it always agreed between her and the first respondent that everything purchased during the relationship was “ours”.[2]
[2] Applicant’s affidavit at [57]-[58].
In mid-2023, the solicitors for the applicant conducted an ASIC search of a company known as ‘SS Pty Ltd’ of which the first and third respondent were Directors. Those searches revealed that the following businesses had been registered by SS Pty Ltd:
(1)RR5 Pty Ltd;
(2)RR1 Pty Ltd;
(3)TT3 Pty Ltd; and
(4)TT2 Pty Ltd.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
These proceedings were instituted by way of an Initiating Application filed by the applicant on 14 December 2022 seeking orders relating to property.
On 29 December 2022, the first respondent filed a Notice of Address for Service indicating that CB Lawyers was acting for him in this Court.
On 2 March 2023, the matter was heard before Judge Boymal where her Honour ordered that the matter be transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1).
On 6 March 2023, a Notice of Ceasing to Act was filed by CB Lawyers.
On 8 March 2023, orders were made by McNab J for the sale of 12 properties owned by the applicant and first respondent and the withdrawal of various caveats. There were also orders made for how the moneys were to be distributed.
On 6 December 2023, the second respondent filed an updated Notice of Address for Service which indicated that RR5 Pty Ltd was acting on his behalf, which was owned by SS Pty Ltd of which, as noted above, the first and third respondents were co-directors and shareholders.
After various interlocutory proceedings and hearings, the matter was set down for final hearing for three days to commence on 11 December 2023. On 8 December 2023, the matter came before McNab J for a Compliance and Readiness hearing, where the matter was adjourned and various procedural orders were made, including the appointment of a single expert to investigate claims of fraud made by the first respondent.
On 23 February 2024, correspondence was received by the applicant from the third respondent which stated that she had loaned the first respondent $739,000 and the fourth respondent, being CB Lawyers, were owed $205,000.
On 6 May 2024, the matter came back before the Court, where further procedural orders were made for the appointment of a single expert with a joint letter of instruction to be submitted within seven days. On 5 June 2024, the matter went before Senior Judicial Registrar Sudholz for an Interim Defended Hearing and orders were made regarding the joint letter of instructions to the single expert.
On 12 July 2023, the matter came before McNab J due to first respondent’s non-compliance with orders, particularly in relation to appointment of the single expert, and increasingly aggressive and erratic behaviour, with an application being filed seeking that the matter proceed against the first respondent on an undefended basis. Order were made and reasons delivered.
On 12 August 2024, the first day of the final hearing, a further application was made by the applicant for the matter to proceed on an undefended basis as against the third and fourth respondents due to their failure to comply with orders, including the late filing of material. In particular, the third and fourth respondents failed to file their trail affidavits by 4:00pm on 29 July 2024. Reasons were delivered ex tempore acceding to the application by the applicant and the trial proceeded on an undefended basis as between the applicant and the second and third respondents although the third respondent was given leave to cross examine the applicant and make submissions on a limited basis.
PROPOSALS
By way of their draft minute of proposed orders provided to the Court, the applicant seeks:
Order of 25 August 2023
1.That the Order of the Honourable Justice McNab of 25 August 2023, insofar as it refers to the sale of the property at [FF Street, Town HH], Victoria, remain in full force and effect, save that the balance of any sale proceeds are to be paid to the Applicant.
Sale of properties at [1 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria, [2 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria, [KK Street], Suburb LL, Victoria and [FF Street, Town HH], Victoria
2.That not later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the First Respondent sign all documents and do all things necessary in order to sell, altogether out of court, the properties at [1 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria, [2 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria and [KK Street, Suburb LL], Victoria.
3.That for the purpose of the sale of the properties at [1 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria, [2 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria and [KK Street, Suburb LL], Victoria:
(a)the Applicant be at liberty to select the selling agent;
(b)the First Respondent act upon such terms and conditions as the selling agent appointed by the Applicant recommends; and
(c)the First Respondent accept all reasonable recommendations made by the appointed selling agent, including the acceptance of reasonable offers.
4.That the sale proceeds of the properties at [1 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria, [2 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria and [KK Street, Suburb LL], Victoria be disbursed in the following manner and priority:
(a)firstly, to pay all costs and commissions associated with the sale including conveyancing costs;
(b)secondly, to discharge any mortgage encumbering the properties at [1 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria and [2 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria;
(c)thirdly, to pay the remaining balance to the Applicant.
(i)That pending the sale of the properties referred to in Order 2, the Applicant be entitled to receive and be solely entitled to all rent received and so far as is practical, will pay outstanding municipal water, rates and mortgage payments.
5.That [CJ Pty Ltd] be appointed to handle the conveyancing of the properties at [FF Street, Town HH], Victoria, [1 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria, [2 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria and [KK Street, Suburb LL], Victoria.
6.That the Applicant be appointed attorney for the First Respondent, to sign all necessary sale documents.
7.That the Applicant, as Attorney, be authorised to sign any relevant conveyancing document/s, in the event the First Respondent does not sign such documents, within two (2) clear business days of being requested to do so.
8.That for the purpose of Order 7 herein, the Applicant will provide a copy of any necessary document to be executed by the First Respondent by email (to his legal practitioner, if engaged, or his last known email address) and by ordinary pre-paid post (to his legal practitioner, if engaged, or his last known residential address), save that a Contract of Sale may only be provided by the particulars page and signature page (not the entire Section 31 and Contract of Sale).
9.That for the purpose of Order 8 herein, conveyancing documents shall include, and not be limited to, any contract, Section 32 statement, discharge of mortgage authority, transfer of land, State Revenue Duties online declaration, withdrawal of Caveat, or other document required to affect a sale of the properties referred to in these Orders.
10.That pending the sale of the properties referred to in Order 2 herein, the Applicant be authorised to nominate a Real Estate Agent to manage the current tenancy agreements in place for the properties at:
(a)[1 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria; and
(b)[2 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria.
Order of 6 May 2024
11.That the Order of the Honourable Justice McNab of 6 May 2024, insofar as it relates to the sale of the property at [BF Street, Suburb BE], Western Australia, remain in full force and effect, save that the balance of any sale proceeds are to be paid to the Applicant.
Sale of properties held by entities
12.That within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the First Respondent, as Director of [CA Property Pty Ltd ATF the BF Trust, the CH Trust, the CA Trust, CA Holdings Proprietary Limited ATF CA Holdings Trust and CA Investments Proprietary Limited ATF CA Investments Trust] (“Respondent’s entities”) list all real estate in the name of the said company for sale, specifically the following properties:
(a)       [BF Street, Suburb BE], Western Australia;
(b)       [BJ Street, Suburb BH], Victoria;
(c)       [BK Street, Suburb BH], Victoria;
(d)       [BL Street, Suburb BH], Victoria;
(e)       [BM Street, Suburb BH], Victoria; and
(f)       [BN Street, Suburb BH], Victoria (“the real properties”),
The sale proceeds shall be disbursed as follows:
(i)firstly, to pay all costs, commissions associated with the sale, including conveyancing costs;
(ii)secondly, to discharge any mortgage encumbering the properties; and
(iii)thirdly, to pay the remaining balance to the Applicant.
13.That in the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with Order 12 herein, pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (“Cth”), the Registrar is hereby appointed as attorney to execute all deeds and documents in the name of the First Respondent’s entities and do all acts and things necessary to effect the sale of the properties referred to in Order 11 herein.
14.That the First Respondent be restrained from resigning as Director or any position, or transferring any shareholding held, in any of the companies referred to in Order 12 herein, pending the settlement of the sale of the real properties.
15.That the First Respondent be restrained from exercising any power of Appointment, in relation to any of the Trusts referred to in Order 12 herein, pending the settlement of the sale of the real properties.
16.That [CJ Pty Ltd] be appointed to handle the conveyancing of the properties at [BJ Street, Suburb BH], Victoria, [BK Street, Suburb BH], Victoria, [BL Street, Suburb BH], Victoria, [BM Street, Suburb BH], Victoria and, [BN Street, Suburb BH], Victoria.
Return Deposit – [CK Property, Suburb U]
17.That the First Respondent retain for his sole use and benefit the return deposit from the cancelled purchase contract of the [CK Property, Suburb U], in the sum of $396,530.
Return Deposit – Property at [W Street, City X], Western Australia
18.That the First Respondent retain for his sole use and benefit the return deposit from the cancelled purchase contract of the property at [W Street, City X], Western Australia, in the sum of $200,000.
Motor vehicles
19.That the First Respondent retain for his sole use and benefit, the following motor vehicles:
(a)       [Motor Vehicle 1] (Registration: […]); and
(b)       [Motor Vehicle 2] (Registration: […]).
20.That for the purposes of Order 19, the Applicant shall sign all documents and do all such things to transfer [Motor Vehicle 2] into the First Respondent’s name, at the sole expense of the First Respondent.
Boats
21.That the First Respondent retain for his sole use and benefit the two (2) [vessels], presently penned [in]Victoria and […] Western Australia.
22.That for the purposes of Order 21 herein, the First Respondent shall indemnify the Applicant absolutely in relation to any outstanding liabilities with respect to same, including, but not limited to:
(a)       Maritime pen fees;
(b)       Registration; and
(c)       Insurance policies.
Liabilities
Alleged Loan to [Ms GG]
23.That the First Respondent shall be solely liable for and indemnify the Applicant absolutely in respect of all payments and liability whatsoever in respect of any alleged loan to [Ms GG].
Respondent’s outstanding legal fees to [CB Lawyers]
24.That the First Respondent shall be solely liable for and indemnify the Applicant absolutely in respect of all payments and liability whatsoever in respect of any alleged outstanding legal fees due and owing to [CB Lawyers].
Outstanding Wages [Ms CL]
25.That the Applicant, in her capacity as Director of [Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd], shall be solely liable for and indemnify the First Respondent absolutely in respect of all payments and liability whatsoever in respect of the outstanding wages due and owing to Ms CL in the sum of approximately $54,000.
[CM Financial Services Liability]
26.That the Applicant, in her capacity as Director of [Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd], shall be solely liable for and indemnify the First Respondent absolutely in respect of all payments and liability whatsoever in respect of the outstanding wages due and owing to [CM Financial Services] in the sum of approximately $40,000.
Australian Taxation Office
27.That the parties shall be solely liable for and indemnify the other absolutely in relation to any individual liability with the Australian Taxation Office.
Superannuation
28.      That each party otherwise retain their respective superannuation entitlements.
Other property
29.That each party otherwise retain all other items of property (including choses in action) in their possession.
Caveats
30.That within seven (7) days the Third Respondent, [Ms GG], on behalf of herself and the Fourth Respondent, [CB Lawyers], withdraw, at her sole expense, any Caveat lodged on the Title to all properties subject to these proceedings, namely:
(a)       [1 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria;
(b)      [2 BD Street, Suburb BC], Victoria;
(c)       [KK Street, Suburb LL], Victoria
(d)      [BF Street, Suburb BE], Western Australia;
(e)       [BJ Street, Suburb BH], Victoria;
(f)       [BK Street, Suburb BH], Victoria;
(g)       [BL Street, Suburb BH], Victoria;
(h)      [BM Street, Suburb BH], Victoria; and
(i)       [BN Street, Suburb BH], Victoria
31.That in the event that the Third Respondent fails to comply with Order 30 herein, pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (“Cth”), the Registrar is hereby appointed as attorney to execute all deeds and documents in the name of [Ms GG] and [CB Lawyers] and do all acts and things necessary to effect the withdrawal of any Caveats and settlement of the sale of any of the properties referred to in Order 30, including signing and digitally authorising withdrawal of all Caveats, all transfers and mortgage discharge documentation, as required.
During the hearing, the applicant provided, now marked as Exhibit A28, an updated asset pool with altered values and expressed final orders sought as:

[First respondent] retains:

Motor Vehicle 2

$35,000.00

Motor Vehicle 1

$70,000.00

Vessels x2

$200,000.00

Deposit – CK Property

$396,530.00

Deposit – City X Property

$200,000.00

Superannuation

E$90,000

CT Pty Ltd

Unknown

CO Pty Ltd

Unknown

QQ1 Pty Ltd

Unknown

PP1 Pty Ltd ATF PP1 TrustPP1 Trust

Unknown

PP2 Pty Ltd ATF PP2 Trust

Unknown

PP6 Pty Ltd

Unknown

SS Pty Ltd

Unknown

RR Family Trust

Unknown

RR2 Pty Ltd ATF RR2 TrustRR2 Trust

Unknown

Liabilities:

Ms GG “Loan”

Unknown

ATO debts/refunds

Unknown

Total

$991,530.00

Share (Percentage) of known asset pool [first respondent] receives

28.45%

[Applicant] retains/receives:

Superannuation

$60,000.00

All sale proceeds

E$2,977,508.12

C Trust

$0.00

Loupe Trust

$0.00

Liabilities:

CM Financial Services loan

-$40,400.00

Ms CL wages

-$54,000.00

ATO BAS Account

-$100,000.00

ATO Income Tax Account

-$350,000.00

Total

$2,493,108.12

Share (Percentage) of known asset pool [applicant] receives

71.55%

The draft minutes provided to the Court by the applicant largely gives effect to these final orders sought.
MATERIALS RELIED UPON
The applicant relied on:
(1)Further Amended Initiating Application filed 22 July 2024;
(2)Further Amended Financial Statement filed 22 July 2024;
(3)Trial Affidavit filed 22 July 2024;
(4)Affidavit of Ms Erwin filed 15 July 2024;
(5)Affidavit of Ms CL filed 31 May 2024;
(6)Affidavit of Ms CP, BO Valuers, City AA filed 7 December 2023;
(7)Affidavit of Mr CQ, BO Valuers, Perth filed 7 December 2023;
(8)Affidavit of Ms CR filed 27 November 2023; and
(9)Affidavit of Mr CS, BO Valuers, Region CX filed 21 November 2023.
RELEVANT LAW
In respect to the parties’ dispute regarding the division of their property in these proceedings, s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the following:
(1)In property settlement proceedings, the court may make such order as it considers appropriate:
(a)in the case of proceedings with respect to the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them--altering the interests of the parties to the marriage in the property; or
…
including:
(c)an order for a settlement of property in substitution for any interest in the property; and
(d)an order requiring:
(i) either or both of the parties to the marriage; or
…
to make, for the benefit of either or both of the parties to the marriage or a child of the marriage, such settlement or transfer of property as the court determines.
…
(2) The court shall not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the order.
In exercising that discretion, the Court is required to take into account the matters set out in s 79(4) of the Act, as follows:
(4)In considering what order (if any) should be made under this section in property settlement proceedings, the court shall take into account:
(a)the financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last-mentioned property, whether or not that last-mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and
(b)the contribution (other than a financial contribution) made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last-mentioned property, whether or not that last-mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and
(c)the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or parent; and
(d)the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party to the marriage; and
(e)the matters referred to in subsection 75(2) so far as they are relevant; and
(f)any other order made under this Act affecting a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage; and
(g)any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided, is to provide, or might be liable to provide in the future, for a child of the marriage.

The High Court in Stanfordv Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 at [35] confirmed that before an order is made adjusting the parties’ property, the Court is required to make a determination that it is just and equitable to do so. That determination is to be made not as a discrete or preliminary issue, but the Court must consider the matters set out in s 79(4) of the Act.
In Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93‑143, the Full Court held at [39] that, in considering the matters set out in section 79(4) of the Act, the preferred approach was to adhere to the following four steps:
(a)Identify and determine the value of the asset pool of the parties as at the date of the hearing (this necessarily involves identifying both the assets and liabilities);
(b)Identify and assess each of the parties’ financial and other contributions up until the date of the hearing (this can include the financial contributions made before, during and after the marriage);
(c)Assess how future and other events may have a financial impact on either of the parties, such as their age and state of health and their income and property or financial resources (known as the s 75(2) factors); and
(d)Step back and examine this formula-based reasoning against the history of the marriage, intangible considerations and other contingencies so as to consider whether the outcome represents a just and equitable result.
PROPERTY POOL
As noted above, due to the conduct of the first respondent the property pool of the applicant and first respondent has been diminished and various sales have had to occur. The applicant gives evidence at [408] of her affidavit that due to the caveats lodged by the first respondent she lost all equity she held in the properties due to the fees, penalties and interest of Z Pty Ltd, a lender engaged by the applicant and first respondent which is canvassed further below. Consequently, she deposes that the assets available for division in this Court are (after taking into account the respective loans and fees in relation to the properties):[3]
[3] Exhibit A28.

ASSET

OWNERSHIP

EQUITY

KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria

First Respondent

$528,617

1 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria

First Respondent

$530,280

2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria

First Respondent

$356,722

FF Street, Town HH, Victoria

First Respondent

$1,110,086

BF Street, Suburb BE, Western Australia

CA Property Pty Ltd ATF BF Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent

$132,800

BJ Street, Suburb BH, Victoria

CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CA Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent

-$305,646

BK Street, Suburb BH, Victoria

CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CA Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent

$149,044

BL Street, Suburb BH, Victoria

CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CA Holdings Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent

$158,514

BM Street, Suburb BH, Victoria

CA Holdings Proprietary Limited ATF CA Holdings Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent

$158,574

BN Street Suburb BH, Victoria

CA Investments Proprietary Limited ATF CA Investments Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent

$158,517

Motor Vehicle 1

First respondent

$70,000

Vessel

First respondent

$100,000

Vessel

First respondent

$100,000

Motor Vehicle 2

B Pty Ltd ATF Loupe Family Trust Director/Shareholder: Applicant

$35,000

Return of deposit from CK Property, Suburb U, Queensland

CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CH Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent

$396,530

TOTAL ASSETS: $3,679,038

In relation to the liabilities, the applicant sets these out as:

LIABILITES

OWNERSHIP

ESTIMATED DEBT

CM Financial Services

Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd ATF Loupe Trust Director/Shareholder: Applicant

$40,400

Unpaid wages (Ms CL)

Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd ATF Loupe Trust Director/Shareholder: Applicant

$54,000

Australian Taxation Office

Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd ATF Loupe Trust Director/Shareholder: Applicant

$100,000

Australian Taxation Officer

Applicant

E$350,000

TOTAL LIABILITIES $544,400

TOTAL ASSETS LESS LIABILITIES $3,134,638

Regarding the superannuation of the applicant and first respondent, the applicant provides:

SUPERANNUATION

OWNERSHIP

ESTIMATED VALUE

Superannuation Fund 1

Applicant

$60,000

Superannuation Fund 2

First Respondent

E$90,000

TOTAL SUPERANNUATION $150,000

TOTAL NET ASSETS (INCLUDING SUPERANNUATION): $3,284,638

The applicant submits that there are a variety of other companies and entities involving the first respondent where the value is unknown and there has been a lack of disclosure. I will not include these in the asset pool.
The third respondent’s cross examination of the applicant and reference to bank statements do not establish in these proceedings that there is any enforceable liability of the applicant to the third and fourth respondents in relation to any loan by the third and fourth respondents to the first respondent. The third and fourth respondents may pursue any claim that they have against the first respondent as a debt, but for the purposes of these proceedings where the Responses of the respondents have been struck out and the proceeding has been determined on an undefended basis, the Court does not find that the alleged liabilities to the third or fourth respondents ought to be taken into account when determining the asset pool of the applicant and first respondent.
CONTRIBUTIONS
The Court is required to make an assessment of the nature and quality of the totality of the party’s contributions throughout the entirety of their relationship, together with their contributions in the period subsequent to their separation. In Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154 at [14] (Bryant CJ, Faulks DCJ, Murphy J); Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898 at [61] (Alstergren CJ, Ryan and Aldridge JJ). See also Dovgan & Dovgan [2021] FamCA 306 at [347] (Harper J), which restates the need to holistically assess contributions following Dickons, and that “all contributions must be weighed collectively and so it is an error to segment or compartmentalise the various contributions and weigh one against the remainder.”
Prior to the Relationship
At the commencement of the relationship, the first respondent was the registered proprietor of BA Street, Suburb BC, Victoria which he had purchased for $50,000 and constructed a dwelling for $150,000. The applicant states that this was encumbered by a mortgage of E$200,000.[4] The applicant and first respondent resided at this property at the commencement of their relationship.
[4]Applicant’s affidavit at [10].
The first respondent was also the registered proprietor of 1 and 2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria and KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria. The properties were purchased for $125,000, $125,000 and $132,000 respectively.
The second respondent constructed a dwelling on the property at 1 BD Street for E$200,000 as well constructing a dwelling at KK Street, Suburb LL, for E$200,000.
The applicant gives evidence that she is unaware of the value of these properties at the commencement of the relationship, however, says that they were heavily mortgaged.[5]
[5]Applicant’s affidavit at [11].
The applicant states that at the commencement of the relationship she had negligible assets.[6]
[6]Applicant’s Outline of Case filed 5 August 2024 ‘Applicant’s Outline of Case’
Contributions during the course of the parties’ relationship
The first respondent alleges that the date of final separation between himself and the applicant is around June/July 2021. This is denied by the applicant who says that the date of final separation is 13 October 2022. In this respect, I prefer the evidence of the applicant where her evidence is clear that the parties were still living together and continued to mix their finances (to the extent where the first responded requested the applicant signed a loan offer and paid a $23,600 establishment fee on 4 October 2022).[7]
[7]Applicant’s affidavit at [186].
Financial Contributions
Throughout the relationship, the properties of the applicant and first respondent was purchased by various trusts and entities under the names of the parties and largely derived from the income from their businesses.
The applicant gives evidence that she caused for her brother to loan her and the first respondent $100,000 in mid-2016 for the purposes of the approval for the loan to purchase the property at BG Street, Town HH, Victoria. She says that the loan was repaid after she obtained surplus funds from refinancing at the property at S Street, Suburb E, Victoria.[8]
[8]Applicant’s affidavit at [75]-[76].
In 2019, the first respondent received compensation from his motor vehicle accident in the sum of $1,600,000 less solicitor costs of E$100,000. Whilst the applicant concedes that part of this sum would have been utilised to purchase further properties, the applicant states that this was largely used to fund the first respondent’s “rockstar” lifestyle, including “good times, drugs, parties, […] motor vehicles and boats.”[9]
[9]Applicant’s Outline of Case, Annexure E at [2][vii].
In late 2019, the first respondent purchased Motor Vehicle 3 for the applicant for $170,000.
In 2022, the first respondent purchased 11 properties whilst making offers on other properties. In relation to the to the purchase of CK Property, Suburb U, Queensland, the first respondent cancelled the contract and retained the E$400,000 deposit for his sole use and benefit.
Non-Financial Contributions
Following cohabitation and the commencement of their relationship, the applicant began employment at the first respondent’s business, CT Pty Ltd, as an administrative assistant. The applicant says that she attempted to cease her employment but that the first respondent was insistent on the applicant continuing employment within his company.
In 2009, the parties undertook steps to start another business together, but following the success of the first business this was put on hold. The applicant gives evidence that CT Pty Ltd was becoming increasingly successful and her workload had increased, with her having attained a degree prior to working at the company. She says that she undertook further training for her duties in the business.
In around mid-2010, the first respondent established CO Pty Ltd where he was sole director and shareholder, but where the applicant states that they ran the business together and she managed the office, trained staff, oversaw the scheduling of work whilst maintaining her other duties.
In mid-2012, during this period, their business suffered downturn, and the first respondent says that they both worked strenuously for the business to survive, including sacrificing their wages.
In general, the applicant gives evidence that she had significantly involvement in the affairs of her and the first respondent’s business dealings, largely receiving no wage for such work.
Kennon
The applicant seeks an adjustment pursuant to Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 (“Kennon”) which sets out that when a party has engaged in violent or abusive behaviour that has had an adverse impact on the other party's contributions to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of property, the Court may adjust the property settlement in favour of the victim to account for their contributions that were affected by the violence. This adjustment may take the form of a greater share of the property pool or other appropriate remedies to address the impact of the violence on the victim's contributions.
Recent commentary by the Full Court has established that a Kennon argument does not require ‘expert’ evidence and can be inferred from lay evidence. (Martell & Martell [2023] FedCFamC1A 71). However, I must find that the violence had an impact on the applicant’s contributions. (Maine & Maine (2016) 56 Fam LR 500). I accept the evidence of the applicant that the conduct of the first respondent has been such as to have made the applicant’s contributions significantly more onerous and that a 10 per cent adjustment in favour of the applicant pursuant to Kennon ought to be made and I do so for the following reasons.
The applicant gives extensive evidence of the abuse perpetrated on her by the first respondent in her trial affidavit. She characterises her relationship with the second respondent by “significant violence, abusive, coercive, and controlling behaviour, infidelity, drug use and alcohol abuse.”[10]
[10] Applicant’s affidavit at [7].
The applicant submits that due to the first respondent’s illicit drug use and abuse that there were additional pressures imposed on the family, including the first respondent’s hospital admissions, panic attacks and phantom cardiac arrest which she says were due to the illicit drug use. The applicant submits that this conduct made her ordinary contributions to the household and work duties more onerous where her responsibilities increased due to the first respondent’s neglect of his.[11] At [78] of her affidavit, the applicant deposes to “[Mr Loupe’s] drug use [having] made [her] life significantly harder than it should have been, especially while raising [their] daughter”.
[11] Applicant’s Outline of Case, Annexure E at [2][vi].
Following the explosion at the applicant and first respondent’s home, the applicant says that the first respondent never followed through with psychological treatment and he became consumed with paranoid beliefs that their home was bugged and insisted that the applicant did lie detector tests. He would also call her “putrid names” and place the child and the applicant in extreme fear.[12]
[12] Applicant’s Outline of Case, Annexure E at [2][vi].
The application gives evidence that the first respondent threatened the applicant with fraud and other florid allegations which resulted in family violence towards the applicant in the presence of their child. The applicant says that the first respondent continues to post threatening material on his social media.
The conduct of the first respondent caused the Queensland Police to seek a Final Domestic Violence Order which was made in early 2023. The applicant recounts a raft of instances of abuse which rendered her contributions more onerous. This includes the first respondent’s drug use following his car accident which the applicant submits that she became overloaded at work as a result and could “never take a break”.[13]
[13] Applicant’s affidavit at [60].
To convey the increasingly erratic and appalling behaviour of the first respondent towards the applicant I extract from the many instances set out in the applicant’s affidavit the following:
144.[In] May 2022, [Mr Loupe] and I, again, had an argument about him accusing me of having an affair […]. This argument was in front of [someone]. [Mr Loupe] told me to "shut the fuck up" and pointed at the ceiling, referring to the "bugs". I went outside at [Mr Loupe's] request and got in his car. He began to tell me in a threatening tone that he was sure that I was part of a "train heist" to bring him down and "steal the gold" because of what I had done by speaking to other people. He shouted at me and called me a "fucking cunt". He ordered me to get my stuff and [CN], sign all of our assets over to him and "get the fuck out of the house". I refused. I got out of the car and went back inside our house. I was shaking and crying. That night, [Mr Loupe] returned home and began threatening me. He told me he was going to bankrupt me. I said he could not, as some of the assets were in my name. He said he could do what he wanted. I replied that I did not care and that I just wanted to be as far away from him as possible. He began menacing and taunting me that he was not leaving the house and that I would have to call the Police. [CN] was screaming and crying and telling me to call the Police. I was carrying [CN] on my hip. I called [Mr Loupe's] parents instead. [Mr Loupe] took my phone from me and after talking to them for some time, [Mr Loupe] left.
145.On [a] morning [in] May 2022, [Mr Loupe] began screaming at me that I still had not booked the lie detector test and said he was not coping. I just wanted him to stop screaming, so I googled a place and booked it for the next day.
146.[The next day], I organised [Mr Loupe] to look after [CN] and I drove to do the lie detector test. [Mr Loupe] began calling me over and over as I drove. When I answered, he screamed at me that I had not given him time to go over the questions. I said that it was not hard, or complicated to come up with questions. He kept calling. I then found out that [Mr Loupe] had left [CN] at home with our cleaner. [Mr Loupe] began crying hysterically and told me that he was suicidal and told me not to do the test. I spent approximately an hour on the phone to him, begging him to tell me where he was and not to kill himself. He eventually told me where he was, and I found him in his car. He was a complete wreck. We drove home together. Later that night, an associate of [Mr Loupe's] arrived. I witnessed [Mr Loupe] take [an illicit substance]. He then went out partying and did not return until the next day. I was not happy that he had drugs in our house. I do not use drugs. Over the next few months, [Mr Loupe] threatened suicide on many more occasions.
…
148.[In] May 2022, [Mr Loupe] came home early in the morning after spending the night away from our home. I was giving [CN] a bath and washing her hair. [Mr Loupe] walked into the bathroom in a horrible mood. I could sense the anger. He began menacing me and saying "it's time to tell the truth" and called me a "fucking lying dog". I said he was talking in riddles and to ask me a question and I would tell him the answer. I was shaking but trying to stay calm for [CN]. He replied, "if you touch a dollar of my money, I'll put a bullet in your head". I began crying and told him to leave. [CN] was crying and very distressed. [Mr Loupe] left our home but returned a couple of hours later. He then broke down in tears on the couch, as he explained he had spoken to his Trauma Psychologist. He promised he did not mean what he said, and he would never do it again.
149.[Two days later], [Mr Loupe] was drinking at our neighbour's home. He had promised to say goodnight to [CN], so I texted him when she was in bed. He walked into [CN's] room and began menacing me, calling me a "dog", "rat", and "thief'. I told him to stop because [CN] was in bed listening to him. He would not stop, so I told him to leave. He eventually left the room where he made a phone call to our Accountant […] downstairs and was shouting at him, repeatedly referring to me as a "cunt" who "had nothing when she met me". I slept on the trundle in [CN's] room. I later learned that he had not called his psychologist at all.
…
155[In] June 2022, [Mr Loupe] told me he had not slept in days. He began threatening me with a lie detector test again. He called me a “piece of shit”. He demanded I give him all the money I had to pay for the deposits on the new properties he had bought. I refused and told him I would default on my loans, and we would have no chance of getting finance in my name in the future. I told him he could have access to those accounts another day when he had calmed down and I could trust that he was not going to take all the money. He then began threatening to kill himself, so I hung up…
…
158[Two days later], [Mr Loupe] began accusing me of the “train heist” again. We were in the lounge room downstairs, and he stormed over to me and stood right up to my face, so I was backed against the couch. I managed to move away from him. He told me he was going to ask me some questions and film me while he did. I replied, “okay I’ll film you too”. I began filming him on my phone. He got angry and walked quickly towards me, where he grabbed me by my shoulders and took my phone from me. [CN] ran at [Mr Loupe], and he flicked her away and she fell on the ground and then got up and ran outside crying and called out to our neighbour. [CN] and I then went into our neighbour’s house until [Mr Loupe] left our house. [CN] remains traumatised by this incident.
159At approximately midnight [on a day in] June 2022, [Mr Loupe] stormed into our bedroom and woke me up and began yelling at me that he had nearly died whilst driving my car and that I “couldn’t give a shit” if he died. I was half asleep and he ripped the doona off me. I told him to calm down and tried to lay back down in bed. He kept yelling and I kept telling him to be quiet because he would wake [CN]. Eventually he left.
…
161On [a] night [in] June 2022, [Mr Loupe] began texting me telling me to lock the doors immediately and do what he said and to remain calm. I asked him what was going on, but he would not tell me and just said "good work" when I texted to say the doors were locked. Within twenty (20) minutes he called me and screamed at me and called me names. I hung up. [CN] was near me when he called and she became very scared and distressed. [Mr Loupe] then began texting me:
7:24pm - "Fuck you"
7:24pm - "You are a lieing [sic] peace [sic] of shit"
7:25pm - "Dog cunt"
7:26pm - "You are apart [sic] of the lot"
7:33pm - "Call me immediately"
7:35pm - "You are a disgrace"
7:40pm - "You make me sick"
7:44pm - " ... tell those fucking cunts next door to stop calling me"
7:54pm - "Best u sort this out or I'll knock him out"
7:55pm - "I'll drive back and things are going to fucking explode"
[Mr Loupe] was angry that I had told our neighbour about what [Mr Loupe] had done when he grabbed me and took my phone and knocked [CN] onto the floor. Our neighbour had been texting [Mr Loupe] telling [Mr Loupe] what I had told her.
165On the morning of [a day in] July 2022, [Mr Loupe] told me he had experienced a fault with the hire car while driving that night and that he would drive [CN] and I to her [sports] lesson because he was worried. I heard him arrive home at approximately 5:30am and told him I did not think he had slept at all and if there was a fault with the car, I would call the hire car company and get a replacement. [Mr Loupe] was upset by this. He began ranting about suing our accountant and sending him to jail. I tried to tell him now was not the time to sue and we should get work done instead but he misinterpreted what I was saying and started screaming at me. This was the angriest and most out of control I had ever seen [Mr Loupe]. His mouth was dry, his face was red, he was panicking and angry and terrified at the same time. [CN] and I raced upstairs to get away from him and he stormed into the guest room where his brother […] was sleeping and began shouting at him. [His brother] tried to calm him down. [Mr Loupe] was in an extremely aggressive state. He was screaming but almost crying too. He left the house and took the hire car. He then began texting me accusing me of having an affair and having an abortion because it wasn't his baby. He called me a "sick human" and an "absolutely disgusting filthy pig". He accused me of vile things and threatened to report me to child protection. I ignored his texts and had to take [CN] to her [sports] lesson and dentist appointment […].

This is indicative of the violence perpetrated by the first respondent rendering the contributions of the applicant towards the relationship more difficult.
I accept the applicant’s evidence that the respondent has subjected the applicant to significant family violence for a significant time and that the violence has continued through the course of these proceedings. His profligacy and irrational behaviour have been outlined in the interim judgments. I accept that the way he has conducted himself and encouraged Ms GG to conduct herself is a species of ongoing family violence.
In her Outline of Case filed 5 August 2024, the applicant contends that the contributions should be viewed as equal by way of her contributions during the relationship, including her efforts to conserve the asset pool and takes into account the contributions pursuant to Kennon, in recognition that her contributions have been made significantly more onerous by reason of the family violence that she has been subjected to over an extended period by the first respondent. I accept that notwithstanding the first respondent's significant financial contributions, when taking into account the support provided by the applicant and the circumstances which she contributed, I find that the contributions are 50 per cent.
RELEVANT S 75(2) FACTORS PURUSANT TO S 79(4)(E)
Section 75(2)(a) the age and state of health of each of the parties
The applicant is 40 years of age and there were no submissions made regarding her health. The first respondent is 42 years of age. The evidence regarding his health is limited, but it can be inferred that he has difficulties with the use of illicit drugs and paranoia associated with that.
Section 75(2)(b) the income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment;
The applicant is currently unemployed. She has spent most of her time trying to remedy the chaos caused by the first respondent.
Section 75(2)(c) – whether either party has the care or control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years.
The applicant has the care and control of her and the first respondent’s child. It is unlikely that the first respondent will play a substantive role in caring, or providing financial support, for the child.
The first respondent also has another child with the third respondent where he has appeared caring for the child during interim hearings in this Court.
Section 75(2)(o) any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.
The stress and difficulties caused by the first respondent’s conduct is likely to have had a lasting impact on the applicant’s capacity to care and support for herself and the child.
The applicant submits that the first respondent’s conduct in effectively wasting assets should be taking into account pursuant to s 75(2)(o) of the Act.
The applicant says that in early 2022, the first respondent went on a “property spending spree” having purchased a total of 10 properties. She states that the first respondent forced her to use any funds available to her for the purposes of the deposits.
In early 2022, the first respondent purchased an apartment off-the-plan in Suburb U, Queensland. The contract price was about $4,000,000 and a 10 percent deposit was paid. The property was registered under CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CH Trust. The applicant says that the first respondent forced her to pay $175,000 towards the purchase, but that the first respondent alleged that he cancelled the contract and received the return of deposit.
A short time later, the first respondent signed contracts to purchase and build at Lot 1 and Lot 2 OO Street Suburb L, Victoria for $620,000 and $560,000 and paid a five percent deposit. Again, the first respondent says that the contracts have been cancelled and the deposits forfeited in conjunction with an additional five percent compensation to the developer. The applicant contended that this would represent a loss of $118,000 which should be considered wastage.[14]
[14] Applicant’s affidavit at [141].
During mid-2022, the first respondent made the following purchases:
(1)K Street, Suburb L, Victoria for $680,000;
(2)Q Street, Suburb M, Victoria for $470,000;
(3)Units 1 and 2 P Street, Suburb M, Victoria for $565,000 and $435,000 respectively; and
(4)N Street, Suburb M, Victoria for $500,000.
In mid-2022, the first respondent purchased a property at CU Street, Town J, Victoria for $1,050,000, paying a five percent deposit with the applicant alleging that the first respondent forced her to nominate B Pty Ltd ATF C Trust for the purchases of this property as well as the purchases of property made at [91] herein. Following separation, the applicant was unable to obtain finance to settle the purchased, causing a loss of $52,500, being the five percent deposit.
The applicant says that she was forced to purchases these properties by the first respondent and that she did not want any of the properties.[15]
[15] Applicant’s affidavit at [173].
In late 2022, the applicant applied for finance with CV Financial Services, having spent many hours preparing such application for the purposes of settling the properties which were purchased by the first respondent during this ‘spree’. Shortly after, the applicant says that the first respondent ordered that she cancel the application as he thought that they were “being set up”.[16]
[16] Applicant’s affidavit at [176].
A short time later, the applicant says that the first respondent told her to sign a contract to purchase the property at H Street, Town J, Victoria which was owned by the first respondent’s best friend (and the eleventh property purchased in 2022), otherwise they would lose $500,000 on a deposit they had made for another property. The applicant reluctantly agreed to sign the contract.
In late 2022, the applicant says she was again pressured to take out another loan for the purposes of the purchase of the property. The first respondent wanted her to sign over all companies and assets to him and made threats of rape and murder. The loan offer was from Z Pty Ltd. and the applicant says that she was concerned as they required all her properties as security and the terms were largely unfavourable, albeit she felt like she had no choice other than to accept and she was assured that the plan was to refinance across to CW Financial Services.[17] A short time later, the loan with Z Pty Ltd settled.
[17] Applicant’s affidavit at [186].
In late 2022, the applicant applied for a loan application with CW Financial Services as a way out of the short-term loan with Z Pty Ltd which was only for two months.[18] However, a short time later, she became aware that the first respondent had lodged caveats over all her properties which caused her to be in default of the terms of the loan as Z Pty Ltd was unable to register their second mortgages over her properties.[19] Consequently, the applicant was forced to cancel her application with CW Financial Services and within the next month, the applicant executed a Deed of Forbearance with Z Pty Ltd as she was in default of the loan.[20] As a result, Z Pty Ltd gave the applicant two weeks to list the properties for sale and there was no opportunity to renovate or carry out repairs on the properties, where the applicant gives evidence that they were largely dilapidated and uninhabitable. The properties were then sold under orders of Z Pty Ltd and in unfavourable conditions, including what the applicant characterises as an unfavourable property market.[21]
[18] Applicant’s affidavit at [194].
[19] Applicant’s affidavit at [195].
[20] Applicant’s affidavit at [205].
[21] Applicant’s affidavit at [206].
Irrespective of claims by the first respondent that he was struggling and without housing following the fallout his separation with the applicant, in July 2023, he emailed the solicitors for the applicant informing them:
Anyway good news, I bought a house today so I wont (sic) be homeless anymore [UU Street, Town VV] through my new company which is very very very close to my heart after finding a young man […] dead after the system failed him. My mission is to help people in need as [Ms Erwin] would of (sic) told how much work I do for others. Its (sic) quite ironic the address of the property and the slogan for […] (sic) House “you will turn up with a broken head BUT you won (sic) leave with one”. So I thought going off your (sic) recommendations [applicant’s solicitor] LOL I might try the accommodation 1^st LOL. The games have begun my friend & I will see you at the finish line WIN lose or DRAW.
By way of disclosure, the applicant was informed that the first respondent purchased the property for $4,600,000 with a five percent deposit and stamp duty in the sum of $252,500. The sale did not proceed and it appears that the first respondent only received the stamp duty back.
Throughout December 2022 until February 2023, the applicant sold the majority of the properties that had been accumulated largely for a loss.
The irrational behaviour of the first respondent is calculated by the applicant to have led to a loss to the applicant and first respondent of $4,923,895.05. Having regard to the evidence filed on behalf of the applicant which I find to be true, I accept that calculation.
FINDINGS
Taking these matters into account I find that it is just and equitable for there to be a division of the assets of the applicant and first respondent of 75.9 per cent per cent in favour of the applicant. This reflects the effect of the orders proposed by the applicant which I adopt (noting that there is a slight difference in the percentage expressed by the applicant in her final orders sought, as the return of the City X property deposit is not included as an asset available for division and it is not included in the asset pool).
CONDUCT OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT
A further issue for the Court’s consideration was the conduct of the third respondent and in her capacity on behalf of the fourth respondent.
On 6 May 2024, the Court made procedural orders for the filing of material where the third and fourth respondents were to file and serve their trial affidavits by 29 July 2024. Included in these orders were for each party to appear in person at the final hearing.
On 6 August 2024, the third respondent contacted the Court seeking permission to appear electronically at the final hearing which was listed to commence on 12 August 2024. The request was never formally filed but the reasons set out in the email by the third respondent were that she resided in BB Region, Queensland and has the full-time care of the two children.
The Court responded to this request by the third respondent by informing the third respondent that it was not inclined to allow the third respondent to appear electronically at the final hearing and provided reasons for such a position. The third respondent was invited to seek for the matter to be mentioned the next day, on 8 August 2024, if she was minded to press the issue. The third respondent never indicated that she sought for the matter to be mentioned and did not take to this opportunity.
The third respondent filed an affidavit on 9 August 2024 going to the matters she had raised in her email requesting an adjournment. The matters she raised in the affidavit and the annexures in support of her application were vague, however, of particular concern to the Court were the inconsistencies in the third respondent’s evidence and her seemingly misleading the Court including:
(1)In correspondence sent to the Court on 6 August 2024 she stated that the children aged 9 and 11 required her full-time care. This is not congruent with evidence she gave in her subsequent affidavit where she stated that there is a shared care agreement with the father of those children. Counsel for the applicant cross-examined her on this matter and she gave evidence that those children live with the father on a week-about arrangement. In these circumstances, it is clear that her statement in correspondence to this Court that the children require her full-time care without qualification is plainly wrong;
(2)The third respondent in her comments to the Court stated that the youngest child, who is her child with the first respondent, could not be looked after by the father (the first respondent) due to this involvement in these proceedings. This is again at odds with the evidence given by the third respondent during the final hearing where she stated that the first respondent could not look after the child as he was busy attending to other business. In any case, it appears that the third and first respondents have maintained a close relationship, notwithstanding that they claim that they are no longer in a romantic relationship. The first respondent appeared at the third respondent’s business premises when this matter was listed for an interim hearing previously and it is likely that she was aware that the first respondent was not appearing at the final hearing in circumstances where he had sent the following email to all the parties in this matter on 7 August 2024:
Dear […] & Crooked Corrupt friends,
Go Fuck Your Selves & Enjoy it a pack of criminals money laundering hopefully the right people will do the right thing and if not well…
…
P.S FUCK OFF STOP FILLING MY EMAIL YA DOGS
Cheers,
[Mr Loupe]
(3)When it was raised with the third respondent as to why she did not take up the offer of the Court in correspondence prior to the trial to have the matter listed for a mention, she gave evidence that she attempted to send an email but it remained in her outbox and unbeknown to her it had not been sent. She did not produce any evidence supporting this, which, if accurate, would not have been difficult to provide;
(4)In relation to the late filing of material, I do not accept the explanation provided by the third respondent as being reasonable or credible. The third respondent stated that the solicitor retained by her to prepare her material for the final hearing had fallen ill and that explained the delay. There is no evidence provided to support the claim that the solicitor had fallen ill nor is there a solicitor on record acting for the third respondent in these proceedings. There is no evidence of any retainer between the solicitor and the third respondent. The third respondent attempted to explain this by saying that the solicitor was acting for her in another family law matter which she was involved in and was not charging her for work undertaken in these proceedings. I find this difficult to accept where the third respondent would understand what is involved in retaining a solicitor.
The Court also has concerns of the correspondence sent by the first respondent under the letterhead of a legal firm. This includes when the first respondent was copied into correspondence during the final hearing and where he replied:
I don’t give two fucks delete my email
Cheers,
[Mr Loupe]
Director/[…]
Further, prior to the hearing, the Court and the other parties in this matter were subjected to emails where the first respondent referenced the applicant’s solicitors and counsel:
Hi […],
I told you I was going to Make you famous! Please pass this email onto […] its also his big moment as an aspiring actor…. He has the role in this movie, and he can play himself as you can […] xo
…
Cheers,
[Mr Loupe] “[…]” Loupe
Director/[…]
This also includes correspondence which was sent to the Court on 7 August 2024 referred to above and which I will set out in full:[22]
[22]Exhibit R1-1.
Dear […] & Crooked Corrupt friends,
Go Fuck Your Selves & Enjoy it a pack of criminals money laundering hopefully the right people will do the right thing and if not well….. [link to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing webpage of the Attorney General’s Department]
P.S some day you may have to answer to DADDY [link to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing webpage of the Attorney General’s Department]
P.S FUCK OFF STOP FILLING MY EMAIL YA DOGS
Cheers,
[Mr Loupe] “[…]” Loupe
Director/[…]
All the correspondence which was sent by the first respondent contained a signature after ‘Director/[…]’ which included “QQ2 Pty Ltd” and below that a slogan.
Throughout these proceedings, the third respondent has also either sent or allowed to be sent correspondence on her legal firm’s letterhead that is grossly offensively and entirely unprofessional. This includes an email sent by the third respondent to the applicant’s solicitors on 12 January 2023 where the third respondent deposes to:
…We can confirm that we have seen the evidence, our client isn’t delusional, he does not have a drug problem, nor is he on drugs. Further due to the current interim DVO he wasn’t able to send a card, gift or attempt to contact [CN] as he isn’t permitted to contact your client and would be in breach if he did so…
…We can confirm that there is a current police investigation on foot in relation to the fraud matters and the writer has spoken with the police directly in relation to this. Likewise, Consumer Affairs, the Taxation Board and ANZ are all investigating the fraud and identity theft and again the writer has been privy to correspondence and conversations that have place so can personally confirm they are real hence why the writer has reached out to your office today…
There are grave concerns for your client’s future prospects given the serious nature of her actions. Our client does not wish for child safety to become involved…
The applicant’s Outline of Case sets out a very detailed chronology of the interactions with the third respondent and her conduct in these proceedings. This includes documents going to evidence that the third respondent was in an intimate relationship with the first respondent and that she had become personally involved in the financial affairs of the first respondent whilst preparing to act for him.
The Court will provide a copy of this judgment and the applicant’s Outline of Case to the Legal Services Commission, Queensland, for it to take what action it considers appropriate in relation to the third respondent.
CONCLUSION
Any application for costs must be made in accordance with r 12.13(3)(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The Court will make orders for any application for costs of and incidental to the proceedings be made within 28 days and be supported by written submissions limited to 10 pages.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirteen (113) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McNab.
Associate:
Dated: 26 November 2024

File number:	MLC 14204 of 2022
Judgment of:	MCNAB J
Date of judgment:	26 November 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the applicant and first respondent were in a de facto relationship – Where the applicant contends that the behaviour of the first respondent shortly prior to separation constituted wastage – Where the applicant seeks an adjustment pursuant to Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 – Where, taking all matters into consideration, the applicant seeks orders that there be an adjustment in her favour of about 75 per cent pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the third and fourth respondents previously acted for the first respondent – Where the first and third respondent were in an intimate relationship and have a child together – Where the third and fourth respondents say that they are creditors by way of unpaid legal fees and personal loans – Where the first respondent acted in a belligerent manner throughout the proceedings – Where the third and fourth respondents failed to comply with procedural orders – Where the matter proceeded undefended as against the first, third and fourth respondents.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 12.13(3)(b)
Cases cited:	Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154 Dovgan & Dovgan [2021] FamCA 306 Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93-143 Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898 Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 Maine & Maine (2016) 56 Fam LR 500 Martell & Martell [2023] FedCFamC1A 71 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	113
Date of hearing:	12–14 August 2024
Place:	Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Mort
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Cahill Family Lawyers
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:	The First and Second Respondents did not appear
Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents:	The Third Respondent on behalf of the Third and Fourth Respondents

MLC 14204 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS ERWIN Applicant
AND:	MR LOUPE First Respondent CA PROPERTY PTY LTD Second Respondent MS GG Third Respondent CB LAWYERS Fourth Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:	MCNAB J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 NOVEMBER 2024

[First respondent] retains:
Motor Vehicle 2	$35,000.00
Motor Vehicle 1	$70,000.00
Vessels x2	$200,000.00
Deposit – CK Property	$396,530.00
Deposit – City X Property	$200,000.00
Superannuation	E$90,000
CT Pty Ltd	Unknown
CO Pty Ltd	Unknown
QQ1 Pty Ltd	Unknown
PP1 Pty Ltd ATF PP1 TrustPP1 Trust	Unknown
PP2 Pty Ltd ATF PP2 Trust	Unknown
PP6 Pty Ltd	Unknown
SS Pty Ltd	Unknown
RR Family Trust	Unknown
RR2 Pty Ltd ATF RR2 TrustRR2 Trust	Unknown
Liabilities:
Ms GG “Loan”	Unknown
ATO debts/refunds	Unknown
Total	$991,530.00
Share (Percentage) of known asset pool [first respondent] receives	28.45%
[Applicant] retains/receives:
Superannuation	$60,000.00
All sale proceeds	E$2,977,508.12
C Trust	$0.00
Loupe Trust	$0.00
Liabilities:
CM Financial Services loan	-$40,400.00
Ms CL wages	-$54,000.00
ATO BAS Account	-$100,000.00
ATO Income Tax Account	-$350,000.00
Total	$2,493,108.12
Share (Percentage) of known asset pool [applicant] receives	71.55%

ASSET	OWNERSHIP	EQUITY
KK Street, Suburb LL, Victoria	First Respondent	$528,617
1 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria	First Respondent	$530,280
2 BD Street, Suburb BC, Victoria	First Respondent	$356,722
FF Street, Town HH, Victoria	First Respondent	$1,110,086
BF Street, Suburb BE, Western Australia	CA Property Pty Ltd ATF BF Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent	$132,800
BJ Street, Suburb BH, Victoria	CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CA Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent	-$305,646
BK Street, Suburb BH, Victoria	CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CA Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent	$149,044
BL Street, Suburb BH, Victoria	CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CA Holdings Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent	$158,514
BM Street, Suburb BH, Victoria	CA Holdings Proprietary Limited ATF CA Holdings Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent	$158,574
BN Street Suburb BH, Victoria	CA Investments Proprietary Limited ATF CA Investments Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent	$158,517
Motor Vehicle 1	First respondent	$70,000
Vessel	First respondent	$100,000
Vessel	First respondent	$100,000
Motor Vehicle 2	B Pty Ltd ATF Loupe Family Trust Director/Shareholder: Applicant	$35,000
Return of deposit from CK Property, Suburb U, Queensland	CA Property Pty Ltd ATF CH Trust Director/Shareholder: First respondent	$396,530
TOTAL ASSETS: $3,679,038

LIABILITES	OWNERSHIP	ESTIMATED DEBT
CM Financial Services	Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd ATF Loupe Trust Director/Shareholder: Applicant	$40,400
Unpaid wages (Ms CL)	Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd ATF Loupe Trust Director/Shareholder: Applicant	$54,000
Australian Taxation Office	Loupe Real Estate Pty Ltd ATF Loupe Trust Director/Shareholder: Applicant	$100,000
Australian Taxation Officer	Applicant	E$350,000
TOTAL LIABILITIES $544,400
TOTAL ASSETS LESS LIABILITIES $3,134,638

SUPERANNUATION	OWNERSHIP	ESTIMATED VALUE
Superannuation Fund 1	Applicant	$60,000
Superannuation Fund 2	First Respondent	E$90,000
TOTAL SUPERANNUATION $150,000
TOTAL NET ASSETS (INCLUDING SUPERANNUATION): $3,284,638