Grohl & Acland
[2022] FedCFamC1F 101
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Grohl & Acland [2022] FedCFamC1F 101
File number(s): WOC 692 of 2016 Judgment of: RIETHMULLER J Date of judgment: 16 March 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property and maintenance of parties – Alteration of property interests – Matters for court’s consideration – Contribution of parties – Where applicant was primary parent and homemaker – Child with special needs – Where respondent was primary income earner – Where no business valuation provided but companies were respondent’s source of income – Respondent increased lines of credit and withdrew funds from term deposit post separation – Large asset pool – Alteration of property interests assessed at 37.5 per cent to the applicant Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 90SF(3), 90SM(4) Cases cited: Grohl & Acland [2018] FamCA 732
Rosati v Rosati [1998] FamCA 38
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 62 Date of hearing: 8, 9 and 10 November 2021 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Macpherson Solicitor for the Applicant: Sydney Family Law Specialists Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Eardley Solicitor for the First Respondent: S & R Lawyers For the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear ORDERS
WOC 692 of 2016 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS GROHL
Applicant
AND: MR ACLAND
First Respondent
MS LIVINGSTONE
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
RIETHMULLER J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 MARCH 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That within 14 days from the date of these orders, the parties electronically file a written submission with respect to any numerical errors that may be discovered in the reasons and a joint draft Minute of Order to give effect to those reasons.
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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 Grohl & Acland is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RIETHMULLER J:
INTRODUCTION
The applicant seeks property settlement orders against the first respondent following the breakdown of their de facto relationship in March 2016.
BACKGROUND
The question of whether or not the parties were in a de facto relationship was determined by Carew J on 14 September 2018 when her Honour found that the de facto relationship commenced on a date between 1991 and 1995 and then continued thereafter until 26 January 2004. After a break for a period, the de facto relationship thereafter resumed in November 2005 and continued until it broke down on 6 March 2016: see Grohl & Acland [2018] FamCA 732.
In the trial before me, there was no dispute that the parties had commenced cohabitation in 1991 when the respondent moved into the residence of the applicant’s parents. The parties lived there together for around three years. At this time, the parties did not pay rent to the applicant’s parents, but did assist with bills and outgoings, and the household chores as well as the respondent contributing some fruit and vegetables from time to time. During this early period, the applicant worked full-time as a health professional, and then took long service leave to assist the respondent with his business (without receiving a wage) before ultimately resigning as a health professional and assisting the respondent on a permanent basis.
In around 1994, the parties took a rental property at Suburb B, ultimately purchasing it in December 1996 for $152,500. They used their savings to pay the deposit of $32,500 and borrowed the remainder.
In 1997, the parties’ first child was born, and the applicant became the full-time carer of their child. In around October that year, the applicant fell pregnant again, and their second child was born in 1998.
The applicant continued to be the primary carer for both children until the elder child became independent. The younger child has been diagnosed as falling within the autism spectrum and having some intellectual delay. Through his childhood he required assistance from various practitioners delivering therapies, including speech therapy and occupational therapy. The applicant is still primarily responsible for his care even though he is now an adult as he is not able to fully care for himself. He has employment one day a week at a store undertaking low-level tasks, however, has not been able to undertake tasks such as operating a cash register. In evidence, an example of his need for support was given of him making inappropriate purchases on the internet. It appears clear that he will require support (although not full-time supervision) on an ongoing basis, and that this will be provided in large part by the applicant.
The respondent’s mother passed away in 2001, and his father passed away in 2002. Following the respondent’s father’s death, he and two siblings each received a one-third share in each of two properties, the Suburb N property and a P Town property. The P Town property was sold and the proceeds were shared between the three siblings. The respondent applied his funds to the parties’ Suburb B mortgage. The respondent later purchased one of his siblings’ one-third share in the Suburb N property for $466,666.66. It appears that the respondent funded this purchase by way of a mortgage of around $500,200 (he also had to pay stamp duty and legal fees). Whilst the applicant understood that the respondent had purchased both of his sibling’s shares, this does not appear to be the case as his other sibling, the second respondent, remains on title, and the second respondent’s children have continued to have the use of parts of the Suburb N property.
The second respondent has taken no part in the proceedings and does not wish to be embroiled in them. She accepts that the orders of the Court may involve the sale of the property and seeks only to retain her one-third share either in specie, if the property is not sold, or by way of payment of one-third of the proceeds of sale, if a sale is effected.
Around the time of the respondent’s parents’ deaths, the applicant returned to casual employment providing home care services, working during school hours so as to be available to care for the children.
In late 2003 or early 2004, the respondent commenced an affair with another woman (“X”) which was discovered by the applicant. The parties separated. However, in November 2005, the respondent resumed the relationship with the applicant, and, thereafter, their relationship continued until 2016.
During the period of separation, the parties had engaged solicitors to settle parenting and property matters, although those matters were not finalised. During this period, the applicant had taken a box from the Suburb N property, which it transpired contained a significant amount of cash. The applicant was not aware of the contents of the box until she got home and opened it. The respondent called the police who attended upon the applicant to make inquiries of the box. I am not persuaded that the applicant set out to steal from the respondent, rather, in the process of separation, she sought to take chattels. Had the applicant sought to steal the contents of the box, she could easily have emptied it before the police later enquired of it, or denied having taken it in the first place. Whilst this incident featured in the case of the respondent, it does not appear to me that the circumstances of it, nor any inferences that may be drawn from it, provide any real assistance in determining the issues currently before the Court.
The respondent says that he continued in some form of relationship with X between 2004 and 2016. The precise nature of their relationship is less than clear. It is apparent that the applicant understood that she was in a relationship with the respondent, causing her to notify Centrelink and cease receiving the single-parenting payment, and to participate in intimate domestic tasks, as found by Carew J in the earlier proceedings between the parties. However, there were clearly difficulties with the relationship, as the respondent says that the children stopped attending at the Suburb N property in 2008.
In February 2016, the respondent incorporated his business and became the sole director and shareholder. Soon thereafter, the parties had a significant argument which included a physical altercation between the respondent and the younger child. This argument marked the breakdown of the relationship, and, thereafter, the parties separated on a final basis although remained living under one roof for some time. In late March 2016, the respondent registered a second company as part of his business arrangements.
In August 2017, the respondent finally left the matrimonial home, although by March 2016 he had ceased leaving money on the fridge for groceries and started to pay only one half of household bills and school fees, and also ceased eating meals with the applicant and children and even ceased speaking with them.
Between 2016 and 2020, the respondent increased the Suburb N mortgage through various transactions. In June 2016, one of the respondent’s companies sent the applicant an invoice for half the cost of repairs to a fence at the Suburb B property.
I found the applicant an impressive witness who appeared genuine when giving evidence. When the respondent gave evidence, he was a far from impressive witness, even after making allowances for him having a very low level of education. At best, he made no real efforts to give any satisfactory explanations, and at worst was obfuscating. I accept the evidence of the applicant and have difficulty placing any weight upon the evidence of the respondent.
The property of the parties
Identifying the precise assets of the parties was difficult in this case as there was not full and frank disclosure from the respondent.
At trial, the respondent maintained that each of the two companies through which he operates his business had a value of $15,000 each. No business records were produced despite the respondent having an accountant that works on the books for him. The respondent maintained that the accountant was away at the time of the trial. This provides no reasonable explanation for the failure to provide business records as to the operation of the business that has, in the past, produced considerable income.
There are a number of transactions that support the applicant’s claim that the business had considerable value. For example, in June 2016, one of the two companies declared it had an equity of $770,864 which included a term deposit in the sum of $344,113. The following year, the business no longer showed it had a term deposit as an asset, although the respondent says that this was because it was held in his name personally.
The applicant argues that the value of the business is a factor that should be taken into account under s 90SF(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). I have added the value of only $15,000 for each company to the balance sheet based upon the respondent’s statement as to their value. I accept, however, the argument that the sums of $15,000 for each company are only admissions by the respondent. When one looks to the sums generated by the business it is difficult to accept the value of $15,000 for each company as:
(a)In June 2016, one of the two companies had equity of $770,864;
(b)If the respondent is to be believed when saying that $344,113 (the term deposit) was his and not funds of the business, the then companies or borrowings must have been the source of those funds as he had no other source of funds except for borrowings.
(c)The companies have funded the applicant’s legal fees in the sum of $172,687.57.
(d)The companies have been the respondent’s source of income since separation.
(e)The respondent intends to pay the applicant any property settlement rather than selling the land. This necessarily involves borrowing $4-5 million in circumstances where the companies are his only source of income.
(f)The nature of the business is not such that the applicant’s personal qualities are significant in the operation of the business (for example, compared to a barrister or surgeon where the skill of the parties personally, is the business): these companies are product suppliers.
I accept that the business must have a far greater value than that represented by the admission of $15,000 for each company. To the extent that those admissions appear to be an undervalue, this should be considered under s 90SF(3) of the Act.
There is evidence of significant sums that remain unexplained by the respondent, despite being on notice of the allegations:
(g)A statement from 30 June 2016 shows that the respondent held a term deposit in his business name (account #…64) at that time of $344,112.67. The statement also shows that the account balance, as at 1 July 2015 was $336,809.42 and that the account earned interest of in $7,303.25 in the 2015/16 financial year (the interest rate in June 2016 being 1.75%). I am not persuaded that this balance is a separate fund from that shown in the company accounts. Thus I take into account the sum in this term deposit as being the same funds that were referred to in the company’s term deposit in 2016 and claimed by the respondent to be his personal funds. As a result, it is not appropriate to add back both amounts. In 2019, the respondent withdrew from this term deposit (account number #…64) the sum of $362,851. He provides no explanation as to what he has done with those monies.
(h)In March 2016, the Viridian line of credit (account #…44) had a debit balance of $100,449.75, and by 21 August 2017 the debit balance had risen to $409,219.20. By June 2020 the account had a debit balance of $467,872.43. However, most of the drawings upon this account appear to have been funds lent to the business, as detailed in the bank statements summarised in para [63] of the applicant’s affidavit. The term deposit in account #…64 must be a different sum from those advanced to the business from the Viridian line of credit after April 2016 as, first, the husband claims the term deposit was his personal account and not a business account, and secondly there was over $300,000 in the term deposit account prior to the drawings on the line of credit. Thus, I accept that the respondent has drawn $362,248 from the Viridian line of credit between April 2016 and June 2020. Likewise, he provides no explanation for the whereabouts or use of those funds in his business.
(i)The respondent has withdrawn, without explanation, $23,118 from CBA account #...70.
(j)The respondent has utilised money from his company to pay his legal fees in the sum of $172,687.57, but produces no documents to explain how those monies were accounted for in the business.
(k)Finally, it appears that the respondent withdrew $31,032 from superannuation post-separation, again without providing any explanation as to where those monies have been applied.
(l)I do not take into account, as discussed below, of the $37,638 on the balance sheet as taken from the children’s Westpac accounts as this was not property of the parties but property of their children.
The respondent provided no satisfactory explanation with respect to the funds in his affidavit material, and it was confirmed that he provided no explanation when giving evidence. His counsel did not seek to lead evidence from him at trial explaining the transactions. His accountant was not called.
I accept that the respondent drew the funds as set out above and has applied them to his own purposes. Given the frugal lifestyle of the parties it appears likely that these sums (other than the payment of legal fees) are still held by the respondent. Those amounts are monies that should form part of the pool of assets of the parties, wherever they may now be, although they are held entirely by the respondent.
I note that it is the exception to “add back” monies to the assets of the parties on the balance sheet, that is most commonly done with respect to the payment of legal expenses after separation. However, in this case, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the respondent has taken these funds and likely holds these funds in places unknown or at worst, applied them to his own use. In the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate that these amounts be included in the balance sheet that represents the assets of the parties for the purpose of considering the appropriate property settlement orders.
To the extent that the funds relate to legal fees, I note that they are not from the respondent’s ordinary earnings but from the companies. Those companies are property within the parties’ asset pool and their value diminished by paying the respondent’s legal expenses. I am persuaded it is appropriate to add back the respondent’s legal fees referred to above.
The respondent said that the one of his companies, Q Pty Ltd, is currently before the District Court at Suburb R seeking to recover an amount of approximately $119,000 from a former employee who the respondent understands has been found guilty with respect to their conduct as an employee of the business. Remarkably no details have been provided of the charges or the claim. However, it is in keeping with the respondent’s demeanour that he would not bother to collate the material for the court. Having regard to the amount taken from accounts, on balance, I find that it is preferable to take this amount into account when considering the value of the business pursuant to s 90SF(3).
The applicant had included in the balance sheet Westpac accounts that held monies for the benefit of each of the children of the parties. I am not persuaded that these monies are property of the parties as the beneficial interest is that of the children. Thus they should not be included in the balance sheet.
Counsel made various concessions with respect to the amounts held in a number of smaller accounts to obviate the need for specific findings.
With respect to the parties’ properties there were valuation reports and neither party sought to cross-examine the valuers. I accept the valuation evidence with respect to the Suburb B property having a value of $885,000 and the Suburb N property at $18 million.
Whilst the Suburb N property has a value of $18 million, the respondent is entitled to only two thirds of that property as his sister, the second respondent, has title to the remaining one third of the property. It is not argued that her title is burdened with any equity in favour of the respondent or the applicant. In the circumstances it is appropriate to include the Suburb N property in the balance sheet at the sum of $12 million, representing the two thirds share to which the respondent has legal title.
The Viridian line of credit has an outstanding debit balance of around $461,698, which ought to be included as a liability. Whilst the line of credit had a deficit balance of only around $100,000 at separation, its current balance reflects the withdrawals of the respondent. As I am taking account the withdrawals as monies to be added-back it would not be appropriate to ignore the debt that appears to have been generated by withdrawing those funds.
The respondent also sought to have significant sums said to be owed to S Pty Ltd ACN … (who have a caveat over the Suburb N property) added as a liability of the parties. The documents with respect to this would have shown the precise transactions involved and whether it was the respondent or his companies that were the debtors, but the documents were not produced. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that there is a real debt owing by the respondent to S Pty Ltd. In any event, the respondent says that a debt is not owing and that he is disputing the claim in litigation. I, therefore, do not include this amount in the balance sheet.
The parties have agreed figures with respect to the modest superannuation held by the applicant. The respondent estimates his current superannuation at $160,000 in a self-managed fund, although disclosure has not been made of specific documents. This is an amount in excess of the amounts ascertainable by the applicant through Westpac bank account documents from March 2021, and I therefore accept the figure given by the respondent as the appropriate figure to use in the balance sheet.
The assets and liabilities of the parties therefore comprise the following:
Ownership Description Value Assets Applicant T Bank Account …07 9,171 Applicant T Bank Account …56 205 Applicant U Company Shares 960 Applicant Motor Vehicle 1 3,000 Applicant Household Contents 1,000 Joint V Street, Suburb B NSW 885,000 Respondent W Street, Suburb N NSW 12,000,000 Respondent CBA Net Bank Saver …22 (Applicant’s figure as at 30 June 2019) 12,642 Respondent CBA Streamline …70 (as at 31 March 2021) 3,399 Respondent CBA Account #…30 (Applicant’s figure as at 31 January 2021) 3,025 Respondent X Pty Ltd 15,000 Respondent Q Pty Ltd 15,000 TOTAL IDENTIFIABLE ASSETS $12,948,402 Assets to be added Back Respondent CBA Standard Term Deposit …64, funds withdrawn by the respondent post separation 362,581 Respondent Funds withdrawn by the respondent on the Viridian Line of Credit …44 post separation 362,248 Respondent Funds withdrawn by the respondent post separation from CBA Account …70 23,118 Respondent Legal fees paid by the respondent from the company 152,542 Respondent Superannuation withdrawn by respondent post separation 31,032 TOTAL ADDBACKS $931, 521 Liabilities Respondent Viridian Line of Credit …44 461,698 TOTAL LIABILITIES $461,698 Superannuation Applicant Y Super Fund – Accumulation 60,356 Applicant Z Super Fund – Accumulation 10,531 Respondent AA Super Fund Pty Ltd – Self Managed 160,000 Respondent BB Super Fund – Accumulation 0 TOTAL SUPERANNUATION $230,887
I find that the net assets of the parties (before taking account of the add-backs) in this matter are $12,486,704. Once one takes account of the monies the respondent has failed to account for as add backs, it is apparent that the pool of assets (excluding superannuation) ought to have been $13,418,225. I also find that the superannuation of the parties amounts to $230,887. Thus, the overall assets, add-backs, and superannuation of the parties is $13,649,112.
The superannuation amounts in this case are very modest compared to the balance of the assets. There is no reason to consider superannuation separately from the other assets in this case.
Notably, the applicant holds title to only $456,836 in assets. She has around $70,887 in superannuation compared to the respondent’s superannuation of around $160,000.
IS IT JUST AND EQUITABLE TO MAKE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT ORDERS?
In this case the parties have had a lengthy relationship, albeit that it had a breakdown at one stage for one to two years. The parties have contributed in markedly different ways, the applicant as a homemaker caring for two children and the respondent as the primary operator of a business. It is also apparent that this role division will to some extent, continue into the future given the needs of their youngest child.
At present the applicant has legal title to very limited assets of the parties. Counsel for the respondent did not suggest that without property settlement orders the applicant would have any significant equitable interests beyond her legal title.
It is apparent that in the circumstances it is just and equitable that there be property settlement orders to ensure that the applicant has the benefit and security of a reasonable share of the assets accumulated by the parties over the years where their life together was arranged on the basis of the respondent undertaking the primary role as income earner and the applicant undertaking the primary role as carer for the children and homemaker.
CONTRIBUTIONS
I have set out the history of the relationship of the parties above. Both parties have made significant contributions to the family over the years. Both parties have worked and participated in homemaking and assisting with the children. It is apparent that the respondent undertook a far greater share of the income earning activities and the applicant a far greater share of the homemaking and childcare activities in the household. Each have contributed significantly in their own spheres. The applicant has always been primarily responsible for caring for the children and also worked from time to time.
Two significant differences in their contributions over the years they were together were the inheritance by the respondent of one third of the Suburb N property from his parents and the period of separation where the applicant was the primary carer for the children.
At the time that the one third share in the Suburb N property was inherited in 2002, that share appears to have had a value of around $470,000. This was a significant contribution by the respondent at that time, and one of the important circumstances that provided the opportunity to gain an additional one third share in the property by buying the respondent’s sister’s share. However, it is important to note that the second one third share in the property was purchased by the respondent with a mortgage and paid off in large part over the years since 2002.
The very significant increase in the value of the property, from a property worth less than $1,500,000 nearly 20 years ago to a property that is now worth $18 million, was in part caused by the good fortune of being close to a government development that is to be built in Sydney. This is not a case where the property was purchased as a land investment in the hope or expectation of planning changes. Rather, this is a case where the parties have had the benefit of a significant windfall as a result of government decisions concerning town development, which were unconnected to the parties.
During the period of separation, the applicant was the sole carer of the children. It appears for much of the latter years of the relationship, the applicant cared for the children (one of whom has special needs), cared for the respondent, and had access to only a modest allowance from the respondent. Following separation, the applicant continued to care for the children and even today cares for their son. The applicant has made a significant contributions as homemaker and parent in addition to earning modest amounts.
The respondent has made significant contributions, working in a business over many years that is physical, malodourous and difficult. His continued hard work enabled the mortgage to be paid and the assets accumulated.
When considering the contributions of the parties as a whole, I am ultimately persuaded that the contributions of the applicant ought to be assessed at 35 per cent and those of the respondent at 65 per cent.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Section 90SM(4) of the Act provides a list of additional considerations (including those set out in s 90SF(3)) that should be taken into account in determining an appropriate property settlement.
In this case, the respondent has a number of significant health issues, however, they have not stopped him from working and he intends to continue to operate the business. At the hearing it was clear that he intended to borrow sufficient funds to pay out the applicant and continue operating his business from the property.
The applicant is employed and earns only a limited amount. She has spent her life caring for the children and not developed a career or substantial earning capacity.
I accept the respondent’s evidence that he reasonably expects to be able to borrow sufficiently to pay out the applicant, which also demonstrates that his likely income from the businesses is not insignificant, and far greater than the income that the applicant may be able to earn.
Having regard to the business valuations given by the respondent, I accept that I should also take into account that the businesses must have a greater value than is represented by a total value of $30,000, particularly in circumstances where the respondent expects to be able to pay the applicant her property settlement share and retain the Suburb N property, with the applicant retaining the Suburb B property.
I also take account of the reality that the applicant’s caring responsibilities for the second child of the parties will continue into the future.
When considering these matters, in the context of the significant amount involved in the pool of assets in this case, I am persuaded that an adjustment of 2.5 per cent in favour of the applicant is warranted. Whilst this is a small percentage, it must be seen in the context of the large pool of assets in this case. Following such an adjustment, the property settlement would be based upon a split of a 37.5 to 62.5 in favour of the respondent.
EFFECT OF THE ORDERS
In this case, I note that the effect of the orders in the figures indicated would be for total assets (including superannuation) of $5,118,417 to be settled on the applicant and $8,530,695 to the respondent. I note that the amount calculated for the respondent includes the add-back amounts. On the assumption that the applicant will retain the Suburb B matrimonial home and the respondent will payout the applicant, she would receive the assets currently held by her, the Suburb B matrimonial home and retain her superannuation, together with receiving a payment of $4,148,194 from the respondent.
The respondent would retain his superannuation, the Suburb N property, and the assets such as bank accounts currently held by him (totalling $12,049,066), and superannuation of $160,000 (to a total value of $12,209,066), together with liabilities consisting of the viridian line of credit, and the benefit of the add-back amounts. He will also have a liability to pay the applicant $4,148,194 which he says he can borrow rather than selling the property.
I am satisfied that such a split of the property between the parties would be a just and equitable outcome in the circumstances of this case.
The respondent seeks six months to make the payment to the applicant. The applicant seeks a time limit of eight weeks. If the respondent’s books are in good order eight weeks should be ample time. However, I would allow three months so as to enable the applicant to ensure his books are in order prior to applying for finance.
The final matter that I must consider is the potential impact of capital gains tax. There was no specific evidence before me in this case as to capital gains tax and its potential impact upon the property settlement proceedings. The evidence of the respondent is that he does not intend to sell the property, but retain it in the long-term. In these circumstances it is not appropriate to make an adjustment for capital gains tax based on the principles set out in Rosati v Rosati [1998] FamCA 38.
However, in the event that the Suburb N property is sold, it appears obvious that a capital gains tax event will occur which would result in a significant capital gains tax liability crystallising as a taxation debt on the part of the respondent. Whilst the respondent gave evidence that he expects to be able to borrow to pay the applicant her entitlements without selling the Suburb N property, it is nonetheless appropriate to provide a mechanism to account for capital gains tax, in the event that the farm is sold in order to meet the applicant’s entitlements under these orders. No draft orders were provided by the respondent to address this possibility. Given the amounts involved in this case a relatively simplistic formula is sufficient, which would provide for one quarter of the sale proceeds (on the basis that the highest tax bracket is around 50% and applies to one half of the capital gain) above $0.5 million (the approximate cost to the respondent to purchase his sister’s share) to be retained in trust upon settlement of any sale of the property. Following the lodgement of the relevant tax returns and the crystallisation of the capital gains tax, the tax liability can be met by the money in trust, and any funds remaining then shared between the parties in the proportions set out above. It appears to me that the delay in receiving any balance after payment of the capital gains tax does not present any real difficulty for the applicant as she will receive a significant sum in the interim period.
As a result, I will direct that the parties confer and provide any submissions, in writing within 14 days, with respect to any numerical errors that may be discovered in these reasons together with draft Minute of Order to give effect to these reasons.
I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Riethmuller. Associate:
Dated: 16 March 2022
3