Grieves and Grieves

The Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement and spousal maintenance dispute between Ms Grieves (the wife) and Mr Grieves (the husband). The wife sought approximately $740,000 in property settlement, while the husband proposed a figure of approximately $260,000. The wife also sought interim spousal maintenance of $1,000 per week until December 2013, whereas the husband proposed payment until her property settlement entitlement was received, along with continued payment of her motor vehicle lease and health insurance.

The court was required to determine the value of the parties' assets, particularly the husband's interest in a property at U Road, where conflicting expert valuations were presented. One valuer assessed the property on a "continuing use" basis, while the other adopted a "highest and best use" approach. The court also needed to consider the appropriate method for assessing property settlement, whether an asset-by-asset approach or a global approach, and whether to apply a section 75(2) adjustment to account for the wife's reduced earning capacity due to her role as homemaker and parent. Finally, the court had to decide on the quantum and duration of interim spousal maintenance.

The court favoured the valuation of the husband's interest in the U Road property based on the "highest and best use" principle, which it explained by reference to High Court authorities such as *Spencer v The Commonwealth*. This principle dictates that property should be valued based on its most advantageous purpose for which it is adapted, considering a hypothetical prudent purchaser. The court also determined that an asset-by-asset approach to property settlement was more conducive to a just and equitable outcome in this case, referencing *Norbis v Norbis*. A 5 per cent adjustment under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 was made in the wife's favour to reflect the disparity in future earning capacity.

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife a total of $567,147 within four months, along with the credit balance of a joint bank account and the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home. Upon receipt of this sum, the wife was to transfer her shareholding in S Pty Limited to the husband, who would indemnify her against any liabilities arising from it. Interim spousal maintenance was ordered at $400 per week, with the husband to continue paying the wife's motor vehicle lease and health cover, until the property settlement was finalised. Costs were reserved.