Grohl & Acland

Grohl sought property settlement orders against Acland following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. Carew J had already determined that the parties were in a de facto relationship from 1991 to 2004, with a resumption in November 2005 until it ended on 6 March 2016. The primary issue in this trial was the division of property between the parties. The court had to consider the contributions of each party during the relationship, including financial and non-financial contributions, and the future needs of the parties, particularly in light of the applicant's ongoing care responsibilities for their autistic child.

The court found that the contributions of the parties should be assessed at 35% for the applicant and 65% for the respondent. The court also considered additional factors such as the respondent's health issues, the value of the businesses, and the significant pool of assets. The court decided that a 2.5% adjustment in favour of the applicant was warranted, resulting in a property settlement based on a 37.5 to 62.5 split in favour of the respondent. The total assets, including superannuation, would be divided such that the applicant would receive $5,118,417 and the respondent would receive $8,530,695. The applicant would retain the Suburb B matrimonial home and her superannuation, while the respondent would retain the Suburb N property and his superannuation. The respondent would also be liable to pay the applicant $4,148,194.

The court ordered that the respondent would pay the applicant $4,148,194, with the respondent intending to borrow funds to make this payment. The applicant would retain the Suburb B matrimonial home, her superannuation, and the assets currently held by her. The respondent would retain the Suburb N property, his superannuation, and the assets currently held by him, along with liabilities such as the viridian line of credit and the benefit of the add-back amounts.