HARDRICK and HARDRICK
[2022] FCWA 90
•29 APRIL 2022
JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: HARDRICK and HARDRICK [2022] FCWA 90
CORAM: DUNCANSON J
HEARD: 10, 11, 12 NOVEMBER 2021
DELIVERED : 29 APRIL 2022
FILE NO/S: [Redacted]
BETWEEN: MR HARDRICK
Applicant
AND
MRS HARDRICK
Respondent
Catchwords:
PROPERTY - where it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order - where the parties' interests in UK pensions are treated as financial resources of each of them - consideration of expert evidence with respect to the husband's UK pension - assessment of contributions - considerations of justice and equity
SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE - application dismissed
Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 72, s 74, s 75(1), s 75(2), s 79
Category: Reportable
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Mr D Klicker |
| Respondent | : | Self-Represented Litigant |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Beacon Family Law |
| Respondent | : | Self-Represented Litigant |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Bevan & Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600
Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204
Coghlan and Coghlan (2005) FLC 93–220
Petruski & Balewa [2013] FamCAFC 15
WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES' NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hardrick and Hardrick has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 312(b) Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)), or to record a variation to the orders pursuant to r 311 Family Court Rules 2021 (WA).
1[Mr Hardrick], the husband and [Mrs Hardrick], the wife are unable to agree about the division of their property.
2A significant issue for determination is the treatment of the husband's overseas pension, [Pension A] with [Employer A]. The wife seeks payment of a cash sum representing a share of what she asserts to be the value of the pension. The husband's position is that the pension is a financial resource and is not capable of division.
THE ORDERS SOUGHT
3The orders which were sought by the husband at the commencement of trial are contained in his papers for the Judicial Officer filed 25 June 2021. However, his position subsequently changed.
4In closing, the husband made two proposals to the wife with reference to his submissions handed up in Court which became exhibit 13. The husband's alternative proposal, contained in page 3 of the submissions, provides that the property of the parties (excluding Pension A), is divided 26.4% to the husband and 73.6% to the wife. In that proposal the husband retains the Pension A, and an adjustment to the wife pursuant to s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") gives rise to the percentage division. The husband proposes that the percentage division be given effect by the wife receiving the whole of his [Superannuation Fund A] and a cash adjustment of $25,000.
5The husband's primary proposal, contained in page 2 of the submissions, provides that there be an approximately equal division of the parties' property. To give effect to that division, the wife receives the [car], $40,000 of the husband's Superannuation Fund A by way of a splitting order, and the husband pays a cash adjustment of $25,000 to the wife. With respect to Pension A, the husband's primary proposal includes a provision that he pays one half of any benefit that he receives after tax to the wife. In other words, of what the husband receives from Pension A and when he receives it, half is paid to the wife.
6The orders sought by the wife are contained in a minute of proposed final orders filed 5 November 2021. She proposes:
•within 12 months the husband pay to her a lump sum of $140,000;
•the husband transfer the balance of Superannuation Fund A to her [Superannuation Fund B];
•within 28 days the husband sell [the motorcycle] and transfer the proceeds to her;
•within 28 days the husband transfer any remaining [frequent flyer] points to her;
•within 42 days the husband provide her with $20,000, to buy or lease purchase a motor vehicle, at which time she will return [the car] to him;
•within 42 days the husband withdraw the caveat on her property; and
•the husband pay to her spousal maintenance of a minimum of $1,000 per month for a period of at least five years.
7The wife proposes that in the event the husband is unable to pay the lump sum to her together with her costs, that he do so by way of instalments.
8The parties reached agreement in respect of an order sought by the wife for the return of belongings, pending the availability of the neighbour to act as the wife's chaperone.
BACKGROUND
9The husband was born [in] 1969. He is 52 years of age. He is a [manager].
10The wife was born [in] 1971. She is 51 years of age. She is a [health care worker].
11The parties commenced cohabitation in 1995 and married [in] 1998. They migrated to Australia in March 2004. They separated [in] March 2018 and were divorced [in] May 2020.
THE PARTIES AND THE EVIDENCE
12The husband was represented by counsel. He gave truthful evidence and was courteous and cooperative under cross-examination by the wife. The wife challenged the husband as to the dates of commencement and conclusion of the relationship and he made concessions as to these dates where appropriate. I am satisfied the husband's evidence is reliable.
13The wife was a self-represented litigant. She struggled to conduct the proceedings, even with procedural assistance from me. On the second day of evidence, the wife sought an adjournment of the trial on the basis that she was ill prepared. She explained she had misunderstood how she was to proceed and required several weeks to organise her case. The wife's application for an adjournment was opposed. For reasons given at the time, I refused her application to adjourn. I observed that the proceedings had been on foot since February 2019. The parties had attended two pre-trial conferences. The proceedings had been delayed and the long-awaited trial had been allocated for three days commencing 10 November 2021.
14I was not persuaded it was in the interests of justice to adjourn the trial. The wife's cross-examination of the husband the previous day had been adequate. I considered the prejudice to the husband by reason of delay in adjourning the matter outweighed the prejudice to the wife of not granting the adjournment.
15Prior to commencing the trial, I explained the procedure of the trial to the wife. I am satisfied that she understood it and she was invited to seek procedural advice when necessary.
16The wife sought to cross-examine the husband in minute detail, for example with respect to the parties' non-financial contributions during the relationship. She also sought to examine, or "audit", the husband's bank accounts, endeavouring to ascertain detail of his earnings and expenditure after the parties had separated.
17I provided the wife with procedural assistance and gave her direction as to the areas of dispute. At times when the evidence was not assisting me, I informed the wife of that, as I had previously explained to her that I would do.
18Although the wife's cross-examination was at times confusing, I am satisfied that I understood her questions and their purpose. Having considered the husband's evidence in answer, I was able to make findings which I am satisfied are appropriate based on the evidence which emerged from that cross-examination.
19For some time, an issue in the proceedings has been the wife's health and earning capacity, particularly with respect to the number of hours she is able to work. Nevertheless, the wife failed to provide medical evidence with respect to the issue. As discussed below I have done the best I can with her evidence in this respect.
SHORT FINANCIAL HISTORY
20After the parties commenced cohabitation, they lived in a home which they purchased in [the United Kingdom]. The parties subsequently sold that home. In March 2004 they migrated to Australia.
21In 2006 the parties purchased [Property A]. During the relationship, both parties were in employment. The husband had some periods of unemployment during which he studied.
22In October 2006 the wife had an accident at work and received [compensation]. She has since worked in a part-time role. In December 2014 the husband purchased a [motorcycle]. In July 2017 the husband leased a car for use by the wife.
23The husband's mother passed away [in] 2017. In June 2018 the husband received an inheritance in the sum of $118,882.
24In September 2018 the wife entered into a contract of sale to purchase [Property B].
25On about 26 September 2018 the husband paid the wife the sum of $50,000 by way of partial property settlement, to enable her to purchase Property B.
26On 26 November 2018 settlement was effected such that the wife was the sole owner of Property B and the husband was the sole owner of Property A.
27In January 2019 the wife increased her home loan to carry out repairs to Property B. In March 2019 she again increased her home loan to pay for legal fees and carry out further repairs.
THE LAW
28These proceedings are governed by s 79 of the Act.
29Orders altering the property interests of the parties may only be made if the Court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make such orders. The Court's discretion must be exercised in accordance with legal principles and the Court must not assume the parties' interests in their property are or should be different from those determined by common law and equity.
30It is necessary firstly to identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in their property.
31Having identified the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in their property, it is necessary to ascertain whether it is just and equitable to make an order altering the interests of the parties in their property. In that process it is permissible to consider the contributions of the parties, but to do so is not mandatory, nor it is conclusive as to whether the just and equitable test has been met.
32If and when the Court determines it is just and equitable for the parties' interests in their property to be altered, the Court must identify and assess the contributions of the parties within the meaning of ss 79(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. The Court must then identify and assess the relevant matters referred to in ss 79(4)(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Act which include those in s 75(2).
THE EXISTING PROPERTY INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES
33I was provided with a joint schedule of assets and liabilities in respect of which the parties had conferred. That schedule became exhibit 1.
34During discussions and prior to the commencement of the evidence, various items were agreed. The following matters arise from the schedule and those discussions.
Line items 11 and 12 - the car and associated loan
35The car is registered in the name of the husband but used by the wife. The husband said the value of the vehicle was $9,000 based on his research and an average of Red Book values. The wife provided no estimate of value for the vehicle. No sworn valuation was provided. In these circumstances and doing the best I can, I accept the value of $9,000 asserted by the husband.
36The amount of the loan in the husband's name in respect of the car is $4,850. The husband proposed that the wife retain the vehicle and he would discharge the loan. The wife did not want to acquire the vehicle as she said it was subject to a hire purchase agreement between the husband and a third party, and she associated the vehicle with bad memories.
37The wife sought to retain the vehicle in the short-term. She will do so pending the implementation of the orders below.
Line item 15 – husband's personal jewellery
38The husband said his jewellery has a nominal value. The wife did not disagree. It was not in dispute that the husband would retain the jewellery.
Line item 16 – inherited stamps
39The husband's position was that the value of these items was nominal. The wife did not disagree. The husband will retain the stamps.
Line time 17 – inherited jewellery
40The husband's position was that this jewellery has a nominal value. The wife asserted there was a ring worth £1,750, which the husband said his sister had disposed of.
41The wife questioned the husband about a ring which the husband explained had been bequeathed to his mother by a friend. The wife said the husband had photographed it and discussed giving it to his nephew. The husband did not remember such a discussion. It was not established to me that a ring of value exists.
42Any jewellery which the husband inherited, which I accept is of nominal value, will be retained by him.
Line item 18 – inherited premium bonds
43It was agreed that the value of these is nominal and they will be retained by the husband.
Line item 19 – [Work Credit Card A]
44The wife asserted the husband has a credit card associated with his employment which is a benefit to him of up to $5,000. The husband also used to have $1,500 available on the credit card for his personal use. The husband explained that the system had changed whereby instead of an allowance on the credit card, he is now paid a one-off annual payment of $1,500 for personal use at his employer's discretion. This payment is a benefit available to the husband through his employment. This credit card is not property available for division.
Line item 20 – funds in trust
45I refer to this below when dealing with the parties' legal costs.
Line item 22 – the husband's Pension A
46The husband is a member of and has an interest in [Pension A Scheme] ("Pension A").
47[Mr A], Cross Border Financial Advisor, was appointed single expert witness to enquire into and report on matters in relation to Pension A. Mr A provided an affidavit sworn 28 June 2021 annexing his report of 24 June 2021, further evidence in his affidavit sworn 3 November 2021 and email correspondence of that date. Mr A was required for cross‑examination and gave oral evidence at trial.
48[Mr B], [a solicitor in the United Kingdom], was appointed single expert witness to report on matters including whether Pension A can be split in the United Kingdom if both parties live in Australia, and the [United Kingdom] Court's jurisdiction to make a pension sharing order. Mr B provided a report dated 24 May 2021. Mr B was not required for cross-examination.
49Mr A reported the Pension A Scheme retirement age is 65. At the member's retirement age, the pension is payable as a guaranteed, inflation-linked income. Alternatively, the member has the option to take a reduced pension income with a commutation factored lump sum, the value of which is limited in the UK to 25% of the value of the pension.
50If benefits are accessed earlier than age 65, income would usually be actuarially reduced, typically by 5% for each year before age 65.
51As at 31 March 2021, the husband's pension was calculated as £10,346 per annum. If the husband chooses to access funds earlier than age 65, or a portion of the pension is commuted to a lump sum, the amount of his reduced pension is not known.
52Mr A reported that, for divorce purposes, a cash equivalent transfer value ("CETV") is the total amount of cash that can be exchanged for losing a portion of the rights to a guaranteed income and spousal death benefit for the rest of the member's life. Employer A had noted the quoted CETV is not guaranteed. Upon a transfer request for divorce purposes, the trustees would make a final CETV calculation before sharing benefits. When a CETV is created, it becomes a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit.
53As at the time of Mr A's June report, the CETV of the pension was £286,280 in the UK. This value had been calculated up to 31 March 2021 and was only valid for three months.
54In relation to the CETV of £286,280, Mr A reported that there had been a significant reduction from the previous CETV of £349,675, quoted in August 2020. Mr A reported he made enquiries. Employer A explained this change was mainly due to a change in the transfer value basis, which in turn was mainly due to a change in the discount rate approach, a financial actuarial assumption used to calculate the transfer value set by the trustees. The transfer value assumptions are reviewed by the trustees at least every three years. Mr A described the large reduction as "very concerning", and said that if it was his own client, he would instruct an independent actuary to calculate the benefits. He feared the quoted CETV of £286,280 may not be reliable.
55Mr B expressed a provisional view that it is unlikely either of the parties would be found to be domiciled in [the United Kingdom], and this would mean the Court [in the United Kingdom] is unlikely to have jurisdiction to make a pension sharing order.
56Mr A reported as to whether Pension A can be transferred to a qualifying recognised overseas pension scheme ("QROPS") in Australia. A QROPS must comply with prescribed reporting and compliance requirements set by HM Revenue & Customs ("HMRC"). The obligation to meet those requirements lasts for 10 years from the date of transfer of UK sourced monies.
57A compliant QROPS can be achieved in Australia through establishing a self-managed super fund ("SMSF") that meets UK pension rules.
58One such rule is that the trust deed will have to satisfy HMRC criteria. A further rule is that the pension or funds that have been transferred into a QROPS cannot be accessed before the age of 55 years and, because Australian superannuation schemes do allow access, a transfer cannot take place under the age of 55 years.
59The transferee will have to be a tax resident in Australia at the time of transfer and remain so for the following five years. If the transferee is not an Australian tax resident, they will be subject to an Overseas Transfer Charge of 25% of the transferred funds. The transfer would occur over a period of five years so as not to breach the non‑concessional contributions cap in Australia. Thereafter the funds can be taken as a lump sum or pension.
60There would be no tax consequences in the UK resulting from a pension transfer to an Australian based QROPS (where the total cash value is less than the current UK lifetime allowance limit). It is not known what, if any, tax consequences would result in Australia, although Mr A said, and as mentioned above, care would have to be taken not to breach the non-concessional contributions cap in Australia.
61At trial, the parties agreed an exchange rate for the purpose of the proceedings of $1.83 AUD to £1 GBP. The value of the quoted CETV for these purposes is therefore $523,892.
62The CETV of Pension A when the parties commenced cohabitation [in] April 1995 is not known. It cannot be said what proportion of the pension accumulated prior to 1995.
63The parties have not obtained an actuarial valuation of Pension A and did not seek to do so.
64In the circumstances of this matter, the actual amount to be received upon a transfer, the length of time that will take, and the requirements to be complied with (other than those described above) are not known.
65The husband said he does not intend to access the pension until the age of 65. He submitted the pension is not transferable or splittable and should be treated as a financial resource. He submitted it is a pension and, apart from a small commutation, is never a lump sum.
66The evidence of Mr A as set out above is that the CETV can be a lump sum.
67The wife included the CETV of Pension A in the schedule of assets and liabilities in the sum of $526,213 as an asset of the husband. Her position was that she should receive an amount representing a share of the CETV.
68In her papers for the Judicial Officer, the wife submitted an adjustment should be made in her favour to her contribution-based entitlement for reasons including the husband having "significant resources" in the form of Pension A.
69Having regard to the evidence as to Pension A as set out above and the husband's stated intention with respect to it, I do not consider it appropriate to include the CETV in the balance sheet as the CETV does not constitute funds available to the husband capable of division at this time.
70Pension A is a financial resource to be considered along with the other financial resources including the parties' other pensions. It will nevertheless be necessary to consider the "real nature" of this financial resource when considering matters relevant to s 75(2) of the Act and in considering the justice and equity of the outcome. (Coghlan and Coghlan (2005) FLC 93–220).
Line item 24 – [frequent flyer] points
71The husband has 240,068 frequent flyer points. The wife attributed a value of $1,200 to those points. The husband will transfer the points to the wife at a monetary value of $1,200.
Line item 30 – [Credit Card B]
72The wife's debt in respect of this credit card as at that date was $2,155. This was incurred post-separation and the husband sought to exclude it. The wife said the credit card debt was incurred to enable her to purchase a laptop. The laptop was not valued or included in her furniture and household contents. Nevertheless, I am satisfied this is a reasonable expense incurred by the wife at a time when she had no other funds to purchase a laptop. I intend to include this liability in the balance sheet as it is part of the existing interests of the wife in her property.
Line item 31 – [Credit Card C]
73The wife's debt in respect of this credit card as at trial was $1,983. This was incurred post-separation and the husband sought to exclude it. The wife said this was incurred primarily to enable her to replace her solar hot water tank which was an essential repair to her home. A small amount may have been used for photocopying and perhaps for food shopping. In the circumstances of the wife I do not consider this to be unreasonable expenditure. It is part of the existing interests of the wife in her property and I intend to include this liability.
Line item 35 – [mobile handset]
74This debt of $665 was incurred by the wife after separation. The husband sought to exclude it. It was necessary for the wife to replace a mobile phone. I am satisfied that in her circumstances this was not an unreasonable expenditure and I propose to include this liability for the reason stated above.
Line item 36 – [Pension B]
75The wife has an interest in Pension B to which she stated had a value of $50,139. The amount of the weekly pension payable at retirement is not known. Pension B is a financial resource.
Line item 38 – partial property settlement to the wife
76After separation the husband paid the wife the sum of $50,000. The wife applied those funds to the purchase of Property B.
77The wife subsequently increased her mortgage by $34,000 for various purposes and said $22,000 of the increase had been spent on legal costs and $12,000 of the increase had been applied to other purposes. Consequently, the equity in Property B reduced.
78I do not consider the sum of $50,000 should be included in the balance sheet as an asset of the wife. This payment is reflected in the value of Property B.
The parties' legal costs
79Exhibit 2 is a costs notification letter from Beacon Family Law to the husband dated 10 November 2021. The husband has paid legal costs of $68,000 and costs to experts of $11,826. The husband's solicitors hold the sum of $12,000 in trust. The total therefore paid by the husband with respect to these proceedings is $91,826. The husband paid $56,000 from his inheritance towards legal costs and the balance of $35,826 from his savings.
80Counsel for the husband referred to the guidelines set out in Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204 and submitted that to the extent that the husband's legal fees have been funded by a post-separation inheritance, those should not be added back as a notional asset. I accept that submission and I do not intend to add back that portion of the husband's legal costs which have been paid from his inheritance.
81The husband has paid more in legal costs than the wife. The amount of $12,000 held in trust by his solicitors has been included in the balance sheet as a notional asset of the husband. In my discretion I do not intend to add back the balance of the husband's legal costs which have been paid from savings in the amount of $23,826. It is not dissimilar to the amount of legal costs paid by the wife.
82The wife has paid legal costs of about $22,000. She has done this by drawing down on her home loan. In my discretion I do not intend to add back these paid legal costs.
83I consider this to be an outcome which is just and equitable for both parties.
THE BALANCE SHEET
84The property of the parties is as set out in the balance sheet below. The numbers in the left-hand column accord with the line-item number in exhibit 1.
85The balance sheet contains the assets and liabilities of the parties and their Australian superannuation interests. It does not include the parties' UK pensions.
Item
Husband
4
Property A
$290,000
5
Mortgage Property A
-$193,888
6
[Bank Account A]
$8,033
7
[Bank Account B]
$100
8
[Bank Account C]
$19,422
9
[Credit Card D]
$815
11
Car
$9,000
12
Loan [car]
-$4,850
13
Motorcycle
$7,000
14
Furniture and household contents
$6,890
15
Personal jewellery
Nominal
16
Inherited stamps
Nominal
17
Inherited jewellery
Nominal
18
Inherited premium bonds
Nominal
20
Funds in trust
$12,000
24
Frequent flyer points
$1,200
Total husband's net assets
$155,722
21
Superannuation Fund A
$134,491
TOTAL HUSBAND'S NET ASSETS AND SUPERANNUATION
$290,213
Wife
27
Property B
$195,000
28
Mortgage Property B
-$170,767
29
[Bank Account D]
Nominal
30
Credit Card B
-$2,155
31
Credit Card C
-$1,983
32
Furniture and household contents
$3,060
35
Mobile handset
-$655
Total wife’s net assets
$22,500
Superannuation Fund C (Wife)
$7,969
Superannuation Fund B (Wife)
$126,506
TOTAL WIFE'S NET ASSETS AND SUPERANNUATION
$156,975
86The total value of the property of the parties is $447,188.
IS IT JUST AND EQUITABLE TO MAKE A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT ORDER?
87The parties have been separated for about four years. There is no common use of property by the parties. Both parties seek a property settlement order. To separate their financial affairs, the parties require orders adjusting their property interests.
88In these circumstances I find it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order within the meaning of s 79 of the Act.
CONTRIBUTIONS
89At the commencement of cohabitation both parties were in employment.
90The husband deposed that at the commencement of cohabitation he owned a motor vehicle worth about £3,000 and a home with equity estimated at about £5,000 with an associated home loan. He had personal belongings and pension entitlements.
91The wife owned a home with an associated loan and had personal belongings.
92Both parties subsequently sold their properties. The equity in the husband's property was applied to the purchase of a jointly owned home in [the United Kingdom].
93The parties sold their home in [the United Kingdom] in 2002.
94The parties migrated to Australia in March 2004.
95In 2006 the parties purchased Property A for about $295,000. The parties paid a deposit of about $15,000 and obtained a loan of $280,000.
96During the relationship both parties were in employment.
97From the period of November 2002 until March 2004 both parties were voluntarily unemployed.
98Prior to 2011 the husband had some periods of unemployment during which he studied. During the times of the husband's unemployment the wife continued in employment. The wife worked on a full-time basis until October 2006 when she suffered an accident at work. She then worked part-time but received full-time wages until July 2012, as supplemented by the [compensation scheme]. The wife has worked and been remunerated on a part-time basis since July 2012.
99Exhibit 3 at [2] contains a comparison of the taxable incomes of the parties from the 2009/2010 financial year to the 2019/2020 financial year. Since the 2011/2012 financial year, the husband's taxable income has exceeded that of the wife. In some years prior to that the wife's income exceeded that of the husband.
100Since about 2011 the husband has worked on a full-time basis. The wife has worked on a part-time basis.
101During the relationship, the parties applied their income to their joint purposes. They purchased vehicles and had holidays. The husband contributed to his superannuation from his earnings.
102The wife said the husband applied their joint funds to his purposes rather than hers. That was not established.
103Both parties made non-financial contributions to the maintenance and improvement of the home. Both parties received funds from relatives.
104The wife deposed between November 2002 and March 2004, the parties resided rent free at her parents' home, where they were not required to contribute to utility bills.
105The wife deposed her father gave gifts of money for the parties to "go to the pictures", he contributed significantly to the parties' holidays, and he sent cash and subsequently made bank transfers to the parties for each of their birthdays, Christmas presents and on wedding anniversaries. The wife estimated that her father had provided a minimum of $11,000 in cash and a total of $56,280 in electronic transfers.
106The husband said when the parties moved to Australia, his mother sent them gifts of money from her savings, which was paid into their joint account.
107In July 2012 the wife received a [compensation payout] of $34,123 which was paid into the parties' joint bank account.
108The husband received an inheritance of $118,882 in June 2018.
109The husband asserted the wife made no contribution to his inheritance and did not attend his mother's funeral. The wife said she wanted to attend but the husband told her he preferred that she stay in Australia. The wife said the husband paid expenses in relation to his mother's passing from the parties' joint bank account.
110The husband did not contribute his entire inheritance to the property of the parties, as $56,000 was applied to payment of his legal costs. The balance of $62,800 was a contribution by the husband.
111The husband paid $50,000 to the wife to enable her to acquire Property B. After separation the husband continued in employment. The husband solely paid the outgoings for Property A from about May 2018. He also paid the home loan repayments, utilities, internet and insurances and repayments for the car. He paid for renovations to Property A. He also travelled overseas.
112Since separation the wife has continued in part-time employment. She has struggled financially and refinanced her home loan on two occasions.
113Both parties accumulated their Australian superannuation.
Assessment of contributions
114Both parties made initial contributions to the relationship as both owned a home in [the United Kingdom], although those properties were of little significance. Both parties were in employment at the commencement of cohabitation.
115During most of the parties’ relationship the husband worked on a full-time basis, although there were periods of unemployment which the wife calculated to amount to about two years in total. During that time the husband made non-financial contributions and studied.
116The wife was in full-time employment until the time of her accident. She has been in part-time employment since, but she received a full-time wage until July 2012 through [a compensation scheme]. Thereafter, the husband made the greater financial contribution. The wife received a [compensation] payout in 2012.
117After separation the husband made a greater contribution than the wife primarily by reason of his inheritance received in 2018 and his contributions to Property A.
118The Court must assess contributions holistically.
119In Petruski & Balewa [2013] FamCAFC 15 the Full Court said at [49]:
The task of assessing contributions under s 79 of the Act is an holistic one; what is required is to evaluate the extent of the contributions of all types made by each of the parties in the context of their particular relationship (Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154). As was also said by the Full Court in Lovine & Connor and Anor [2012] FamCAFC 168, at paragraphs 40 and 41 such an evaluation “inevitably involves value judgments and matters of impression”, and accordingly it cannot be treated as “a mathematical exercise”.
120I have considered the parties' differing contributions in the particular circumstances of their relationship from the commencement of cohabitation to the date of trial.
121In my assessment by reason of contribution the percentage division of the net assets and superannuation interests of the parties should be 55% to the husband and 45% to the wife.
122The total of the net assets and superannuation of the parties is $447,188. The effect of this finding as to contribution is that the husband is entitled to receive property to a value of $245,953 and the wife is entitled to receive property to a value of $201,234.
SECTION 75(2) MATTERS
123The relevant matters to be taken into account are as set out below.
(a) the age and state of health of each of the parties
124The husband is 52 years of age and in reasonable health.
125The wife is 51 years of age. She deposed that in October 2006 her health was "compromised" by ongoing [vertebral pain, and discomfort in her arms and legs] as a result of the workplace injury. She was prescribed painkillers. She deposed she has had years of treatment with no or only slight improvement in her symptoms. She deposed she suffers ongoing pain for which she is prescribed pain medication with consequential side effects.
(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
126The parties have the property as set out above. The husband is in receipt of an annual salary of $91,387 and in the 2021 financial year he was entitled to a profit share of $20,241 before tax. The husband's remuneration package including his salary, superannuation, profit share, superannuation on profit share/rewards, personal allowance, fully maintained company vehicle and uniform as of 1 November 2021 totals $143,191.
127 The wife is in receipt of a gross fortnightly wage of $1,427 for her part-time employment, in addition to which superannuation of $136 per fortnight is paid.
128 At issue is the wife's physical capacity for paid employment. She deposed she works part-time (two separated eight-hour shifts) because of [vertebral pain] which is currently being managed by taking [extensive prescription pain medication every morning] and [further pain medications] as required. The wife deposed she is unable to increase her working hours by reason of pain and her shifts must be separated by one day. It was put to the wife that would not preclude her from working on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, with a day in between each shift. The wife said she would not be able to so increase her shifts because it would give her no time to time to do "normal things that are required [such as] housework, food shopping". With respect to her ability to work longer hours, the wife said the medical practitioners do not tell her she cannot work, she tells them she cannot, as there is no quality.
129 In closing, the husband's counsel described this as being more "lifestyle" rather than health reasons.
130 The wife's position as to her earning capacity has been an issue since the inception of these proceedings. However, she filed no evidence from medical practitioners as to her current medical condition or the impact it has on her capacity for employment. I infer that any medical evidence the wife would obtain would not assist her. This inference is supported by what she said set out at [182] below. Upon the evidence I am not persuaded that the wife is unable to achieve at least a modest increase in her hours of work. Nevertheless, I am satisfied her earnings and income will not match that of the husband in the future.
131The parties have the following financial resources.
Pension A (Husband)
£10,346 per annum
UK State pension (Husband)
$E325 per week
Pension B (Wife)
$Not known per week
UK State pension (Wife)
$E156 per week
(d) commitments of each of the parties that are necessary to enable the party to support:
(i)himself or herself; and
(ii)a child or another person that the party has a duty to maintain
132Both parties have commitments by way of mortgage repayments and living expenses.
(f) subject to subsection (3), the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under:
(i)any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or Territory or of another country; or
(ii)any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was established, or operates, within or outside Australia;
and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party
133The parties have the superannuation interests as set out in the balance sheet.
134Both parties are entitled to receive the pensions referred to at [131] above upon retirement as a consequence of their employment in the UK. The pension to which the husband is entitled from Employer A at normal retirement age of 65 years as at 31 March 2021 is £10,346 per annum. Applying the agreed exchange rate of $1.83 AUD to £1 GBP that is equivalent to $18,933 per annum. The husband's primary proposal is to share Pension A equally with the wife.
135The husband will be entitled to a UK State pension at State Pension age, which the wife estimated to be $325 per week. The husband did not take issue with the wife's estimated value.
136The wife will be entitled to Pension B, the value of which she said was $50,139 as at January 2021, although the weekly amount is not known. The wife will also be entitled to a UK State pension which she will receive when she reaches the State Pension age [in] 2038. This is estimated to be £86 (or $156) per week based on her National Insurance record to [April] 2020. It is forecast to be £178 per week if she continues to contribute to it until [April] 2038, although there was no evidence that she is doing so.
(g) where the parties have separated or divorced, a standard of living that in all the circumstances is reasonable
137The parties enjoyed a reasonably comfortable standard of living during their relationship. The husband continues to do so. The wife's circumstances are difficult. She deposed to requiring funds for various purposes including repairs to her home and the need to purchase a motor vehicle. The wife has supported herself since the parties separated, although she asserted that this has not been to the same standard or to her satisfaction, and that the husband has provided her with a car and paid for its' costs.
(h) the extent to which the payment of maintenance to the party whose maintenance is under consideration would increase the earning capacity of that party by enabling that party to undertake a course of education or training or to establish himself or herself in a business or otherwise to obtain an adequate income
138The wife does not propose to undertake training.
(j) the extent to which the party whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other party
139The wife asserted that during the periods of the husband's unemployment, she supported him financially. I accept that the husband was unemployed for relatively short periods during which time the wife worked, and the husband studied.
140I consider the parties' contributions to their financial resources here. The husband deposed he worked for Employer A from his apprenticeship in about 1985 until he resigned in about 2002. Employer A reported the husband was in level 1 from [May] 1987 to [June] 1995 and level 2 from [July] 1995 to [November] 2002, when he left the company. The parties commenced cohabitation in 1995. The husband's pension was calculated to be £1,955 [in] April 1995.
141Mr A could not say what proportion of the pension had accumulated prior to 1995 by reason of the way the schemes grow over time. He explained that the pension accumulated through active service and once finished, pension increases are provided in line with inflation.
142Employer A were unable to provide details of the CETV as at [April] 1995. Mr A explained a "rule of thumb" approach to calculate the CETV as at 1995 would be to multiply the income figure by a factor of 20, which would give a CETV at that time of £39,107.
143Upon the evidence I am unable to say what proportion of the pension had accumulated prior to 1995, nor can I say with any certainty what its' capital value was at that time. However, the husband was a member of Pension A Scheme from [May] 1987 until [November] 2002 when he left the scheme. Although I cannot quantify his contribution in this respect, I am satisfied that the husband contributed to Pension A during that time, and he contributed the pension to the relationship at the commencement of cohabitation.
144From 1995 to 2002 the husband continued to contribute financially to Pension A. The wife deposed she did not start a pension as the husband told her they would have his pension and they wanted extra cash at the time. I accept and take into account that by the use of her income the wife contributed indirectly to Pension A during the time the parties cohabited. Both parties therefore contributed to Pension A, although the husband's contributions are likely to be greater than those of the wife by virtue of his membership in the scheme prior to cohabitation.
145Both parties have UK State pensions, and the wife [also] has Pension B. Each party accumulated these pensions during their employment in the UK.
146The wife automatically opted into the [Pension B Scheme] when she was employed by Employer B.
(k) the duration of the marriage and the extent to which it has affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration
147The parties were in a relationship for 23 years and were married for 19 years.
(o) any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account
148The wife took issue with the husband's disclosure. It was not established to me that he had failed in his duty of disclosure and that is not consistent with my assessment of him as a witness. The wife's complaint as to the husband's lack of disclosure related to matters including her enquiries as to his increased spending after separation, withdrawals from joint bank accounts after separation, and his salary package. She was also critical of his expenditure after separation on holidays and clothes. The husband's expenditure from his earnings was not unreasonable. He is at liberty to use his income as he chooses, as is the wife.
149The wife referred to the husband having made large cash withdrawals, but it was not established to me that the husband has undisclosed assets. Many of the wife's queries and requests for disclosure related to items of little or negligible value.
ASSESSMENT OF SECTION 75(2) MATTERS
150I consider the most relevant matter warranting an adjustment to be the disparity in the earning capacities of the parties.
151This matter and others discussed under s 75(2), taken as a whole, warrant an adjustment in favour of the wife. In my discretion I consider an adjustment of 10% in her favour is appropriate to take account of these matters. 10% of the parties' property is $44,719.
152I have not overlooked the disparity in the parties' respective pension entitlements upon retirement and their contributions to those entitlements, to which I have given careful consideration when considering the justice and equity of the outcome.
JUST AND EQUITABLE
153The property of the parties should therefore be divided 55% to the wife and 45% to the husband. The total of the property of the parties is $447,188. The wife is entitled to receive $245,953. The husband is entitled to receive $201,235.
154I consider the above division of the parties' property results in a just and equitable outcome for the parties. The parties' net assets and Australian superannuation would be divided in the said proportions and will include a splitting order in respect of the husband's Superannuation Fund A and a cash payment to the wife.
155Pension A is a valuable financial resource. The husband's contributions to it were greater than those of the wife, but nevertheless he proposes to pay one half of the Pension A he receives after tax to the wife. I have not overlooked that this proposal was made in the context of an equal division of the parties' property overall and I have found that a division 55% to the wife and 45% to the husband is appropriate. I take into account however that the disparity in the percentage division is relatively modest.
156To achieve a just and equitable outcome, I consider that to the extent possible, Pension A and the other pensions should be divided equally. The husband said he has no intention of retiring early and will not access the pension before the age of 65 years. In that event the parties will share the pension equally at that time. However, should the husband choose to make retirement decisions which include transferring his interest in Pension A to a qualifying SMSF in Australia, that interest will become a defined contribution and capable of being divided equally.
157It is not possible to be precise as to the equal division of the other pensions. The parties agreed they would each retain their pensions. The husband will retain his UK State pension, which is greater than that of the wife, but the wife will retain both her UK State pension and her Pension B.
158I am mindful that s 81 of the Act provides that the Court shall, as far as practicable, make such orders as will finally determine the financial relationships between the parties to the marriage and avoid further proceedings between them. That cannot be done in the circumstances of these parties, where a just and equitable outcome militates otherwise.
159I do not consider the husband's alternative proposal to be one which produces a just and equitable outcome for the parties. In terms of that proposal the parties retain their own pensions. There would be a splitting order such that the wife receives the husband's Superannuation Fund A and a cash adjustment. She would receive 75% of the parties' net assets and Australian superannuation and the husband a corresponding 25%. The difficulty with this percentage division arises by reason of the modest value of the parties' property in comparison to the likely value of Pension A.
160The parties agree they should each retain the net assets in their respective possessions, except for the frequent flyer points which are to be transferred to the wife.
161Excluding the frequent flyer points, the husband has property to a value of $289,013. Including the frequent flyer points, the wife has property to a value of $158,175. To achieve the percentage division referred to, the husband will have to pay to the wife $87,778. This payment will be made up of a cash payment of $30,000. I take into account that the husband offered a cash adjustment of $25,000 to the wife, but she does not wish to retain the car and the husband is at liberty to dispose of it if he chooses to do so. The balance of the cash adjustment to the wife will be made up of a split of the husband's Superannuation Fund A, such that the wife receives $57,778 thereof.
162The husband will retain the balance of Superannuation Fund A, equity in Property A, a motorcycle, and some household contents. He may choose to dispose of the car having offered it to the wife. He has a good earning capacity. He will have less superannuation than the wife, but he will be able to accumulate superannuation prior to retirement. At that time, he will be entitled to receive one half of Pension A and his UK State pension.
163The wife has some equity in Property B, and she will receive a cash payment. She may apply this to the cost of urgent repairs she says are required or alternatively she may purchase a car. The wife receives an income from her employment. Upon retirement she will also be entitled to receive an income from Pension B, and her UK State pension when she reaches the State Pension age. The wife will also receive one half of Pension A when and in whatever form the husband receives it.
164In the circumstances of these parties, this is an outcome which I consider to be just and equitable.
GIVING EFFECT TO THE OUTCOME
165Part VIIIB of the Act provides for the splitting of superannuation interests and applies to eligible superannuation plans. This Part does not apply to the parties' overseas pensions. A pension sharing order cannot be made by the Court [in the United Kingdom] as both parties live in Australia. This Court however can make an order with respect to Pension A by making an order that the husband deal with it in a particular way. The orders proposed by the husband in his minute of proposed orders at exhibit 13 are consistent with this approach.
THE PROPERTY ORDERS
166[Having heard from counsel for the husband and from the wife, I made the orders set out below.]
Cash
1Within 28 days of the date of publication of these orders, the Applicant, [MR HARDRICK] pay to the Respondent, [MRS HARDRICK] the sum of $30,000.
Superannuation
2The base amount allocated to the Respondent out of the Applicant's interest in [Superannuation Fund A] is the sum of $57,778.
3Pursuant to paragraph 90XT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), whenever the Trustee of the Fund makes a splittable payment from the interest held by the Applicant:
(a)the Trustee shall pay to the Respondent the entitlements calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001, using the base amount specified in order 2; and
(b)there shall be a corresponding reduction in the entitlement the Applicant would have had in the Fund but for these orders.
4Orders 2 and 3 have effect from the operative time.
5The operative time is five business days after service of these orders on the Trustee of the Fund.
6The Trustee shall do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to:
(a)calculate in accordance with the requirements of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the entitlement created in orders 2 and 3 of these orders; and
(b)pay the entitlements whenever a splittable payment becomes payable.
7These orders bind the Trustee of the Fund.
8All fees and expenses associated with the transfer of the base amount pursuant to these orders shall be borne equally by the parties.
9Except where otherwise provided in these orders, the parties are each declared to be the owner and beneficiary of their respective superannuation interests.
[Pension A]
10Within seven days of receipt by the Applicant of any lump sum or pension payment from [Employer A] he shall pay to the Respondent the sum equivalent to 50% of the amount received by the Applicant by way of lump sum or pension after tax, into a bank account nominated by the Respondent.
11The Applicant be at liberty to transfer [Pension A] to a self-managed superannuation fund in Australia, in which event the reference to [Pension A] in paragraph 10 is defined to include [Pension A] transferred to a self-managed superannuation fund in Australia.
12Until such time as [Pension A] has been divided in accordance with these orders:
(a)the Applicant shall provide the Respondent no less than 28 days' notice before such time as he elects to retire or for any reason receive or become entitled to access in whole or in part his entitlements to [Pension A];
(b)the Applicant shall direct and authorise the Trustee of [Employer A] to communicate with the Respondent and/or any person authorised by her in writing:
(i)to answer any reasonable enquiries made by her from time to time in relation to the Applicant's interest in [Pension A]; and
(ii)to provide the Respondent and/or her authorised representative with a copy of any application or request by the Applicant which seeks a release of his entitlement in [Pension A] including a transfer to a self‑managed superannuation fund in Australia; and
(c)the Applicant be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining the Applicant from dealing with his interest in [Pension A] except to comply with these orders.
13The parties have liberty to provide a copy of these orders to [Employer A].
14The parties have liberty to apply on short notice for further or other orders to give effect to an equal division of [Pension A].
15 By consent, the Applicant shall provide the Respondent not less than 28 days' notice of his intention to leave Australia permanently.
Other property
16Within 28 days of the date of publication of these orders, the Applicant shall transfer all of the [frequent flyer] points to the Respondent.
17Within 28 days of the publication of these orders, the Respondent shall:
(a)attend the residence of the Applicant on a date to be agreed for a period of three hours to collect her personal items; and
(b)return the [car] to the Applicant.
18Except where otherwise provided in these orders, any right, title, estate or interest the Applicant has in any other property or financial resources in the name or possession of the Respondent vest in the Respondent absolutely, including but not limited to [Property B].
19Except where otherwise provided in these orders, any right, title, estate or interest the Respondent has in any other property or financial resources in the name or possession of the Applicant vest in the Applicant absolutely.
20The parties each pay and indemnify the other party and keep the other party indemnified in relation to any liabilities in their name or associated with any property they are retaining pursuant to these orders.
21The parties do all acts and sign all documents necessary to give effect to these orders.
22The parties have liberty to apply with respect to the implementation of these orders.
SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE
167The wife seeks an order in the following terms:
7.As we cannot otherwise reach a fair settlement in regard to our extremely different financial circumstances, I request that The Court make Orders for the Applicant to pay spousal maintenance as a minimum of $1,000 per month into the Respondent's bank account for a period of at least 5 years
(as per the original)
168The wife's position was somewhat confusing. In cross- examination she said she wanted spousal maintenance for as long as possible and until the appropriate amount of the asset pool had been paid. She said "I wanted to come out with $650,000 as my proportion of the asset pool that I presumed was there. So, I was looking at 65% of $1,000,000". With reference to her minute of proposed final orders, the wife confirmed that after deducting the amounts of $140,000 sought in paragraph 1 and a further amount pursuant to paragraph 5, which she confirmed in oral evidence to be $20,000, she wanted the balance made up by way of spousal support.
169The Court must determine the division of the parties' property, and thereafter ascertain if the requirements of s 72 of the Act are met.
170In closing the wife confirmed that she sought spousal maintenance for a period of five years.
171The husband opposes the order sought by the wife for spousal maintenance.
172Section 72(1) of the Act provides as follows:
72Right of spouse to maintenance
(1)A party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party, to the extent that the first‑mentioned party is reasonably able to do so, if, and only if, that other party is unable to support herself or himself adequately whether:
(a)by reason of having the care and control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years;
(b)by reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment; or
(c) for any other adequate reason;
having regard to any relevant matter referred to in subsection 75(2).
173It is necessary to consider whether the wife has established she is unable to support herself adequately by reason of one or more of the factors set out in s 72(1). The wife relies on s 72(1)(b).
174Section 74(1) provides as follows:
74Power of court in spousal maintenance proceedings
(1)In proceedings with respect to the maintenance of a party to a marriage, the court may make such order as it considers proper for the provision of maintenance in accordance with this Part.
175Section 75(1) provides as follows:
75Matters to be taken into consideration in relation to spousal maintenance
(1)In exercising jurisdiction under section 74, the court shall take into account only the matters referred to in subsection (2).
176I have referred to the relevant matters in s 75(2) to be taken into account above.
177The Full Court in Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600 set out the process in determining spousal maintenance applications at 81,981 and 81,982:
Taken together then, we would state the law as being that an award of spousal maintenance requires:
1.a threshold finding under s 72;
2.consideration of s 74 and s 75(2);
3.no fettering principle that pre-separation standard of living must automatically be awarded where the respondent's means permit; and
4.discretion exercised in accordance with the provisions of s 74, with "reasonableness in the circumstances" as the guiding principle.
178The threshold for the consideration of an application for spousal maintenance is the requirement that an applicant is unable to support herself or himself adequately because of one of the factors in s 72(1) above.
179In October 2006 the wife suffered an injury at work which left her with [vertebral pain, and discomfort in her arms and legs]. An MRI showed [vertebral issues]. The wife was prescribed pain killers. She also has [an intestinal condition] as a result of the side effects of her use of pain killers. The wife deposed since the accident she has never been pain free or able to work full-time and is only able to reduce her pain by increasing pain killers. The wife deposed that after the accident she was only able to work a few hours on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. She received compensation to supplement her wages to a full-time wage until July 2012. In 2012, a temporary 18-hour a week position became available and the wife worked in that position until November 2014. The wife deposed she could not manage more than part-time hours.
180The wife commenced working at [Employer C] at the end of 2014. She deposed her employer has agreed to separate her shifts as she was too sore to work consecutive shifts. When she has been rostered on to do two shifts, she has taken sick leave. On the day after a shift, the wife said she does very little and uses it as a rest day. The wife deposed she has significant ongoing medical and medication costs. She sees a neurologist at [Hospital A] for a review every six months but has not found effective pain relief.
181The husband does not accept the wife's limitations for work. He deposed she is qualified as a health care worker and has worked [in that role] for more than 20 years. He deposed she has worked part-time two days per week for the last five years, and he believes she has the capacity to increase her working hours.
182The wife provided no evidence in support of her medical condition. She said the most recent medical report concerning her ability to work longer hours was prepared in 2012. She said:
…my problem is it's kind of subjective. They're not telling me I can't work, I'm telling people that I can't, it's not worth it, like there's no quality.
183She did not provide any documentation from her general practitioner as to her prescription for pain killers. She said she has letters from a rheumatologist to explain her pain is [injury]-related and most likely [due] to hypermobility which has exacerbated the problem and that is not healing. She said has a medical summary referring to her condition as [a chronic pain condition]. These documents were not before the Court.
184The wife currently works two days a week. She explained the day before work and the day after work is a rest day. It was put to her in cross-examination that she could work on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. She replied the day before work and the day between work is a rest day, and that working three days per week would give her no time to do normal things that are required, such as housework and food shopping.
185I consider the wife's response as to her ability to work three days per week on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays to be unsatisfactory.
186Similarly, I consider her response to my request for recent medical evidence to be unsatisfactory in that she deposed to a number of ailments and the use of strong medication but provided no medical evidence in support of her condition.
187The wife's gross fortnightly pay is $1,428. She salary sacrifices to minimise tax. After the salary sacrifice and taxation, her net pay is $995 per fortnight. The wife's employer pays her superannuation contribution of $136 per fortnight.
188The wife's financial statement filed 22 December 2020 discloses a weekly income of $713. The total of the wife's personal expenditure, less superannuation which is paid by her employer, is $308. The wife's weekly expenses as set out at Part N of her financial statement amount to $730, although she acknowledged that this represents the hypothetical amount that she would like to spend each week, but not the real amounts spent.
189The wife has supported herself without spousal maintenance since separation although she has had the use of a motor vehicle provided by the husband.
190The opening balance of the wife's [mortgage] account as at 1 July 2020 was $165,000 and the closing balance as at 31 December 2020 was $163,000. The wife agreed with the proposition put by the husband's counsel that she had been able to reduce her mortgage while receiving her normal income.
191The wife has not demonstrated that she is unable to support herself adequately by reason of one of the matters set out in s 72(1). In particular it has not been established that the wife is unable to support herself adequately by reason of age, or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment. The wife is able to work two days a week. It may be that she requires a day between shifts, but her reason for not working Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays appeared to be a lifestyle choice, as described by counsel for the husband.
192In all the circumstances the wife's application for spousal maintenance will be dismissed.
THE ORDER
The application of the Respondent for spousal maintenance is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Family Court of Western Australia.
RM
Associate
29 APRIL 2022
0
3
0