Haslam and Haslam

This matter concerned an application by the wife for an alteration of property interests pursuant to s.79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and an associated application for an extension of time under s.44(3) of the Act. The court, presided over by Judge Young, granted leave to institute proceedings and extended the time for the wife to do so, finding that refusal would cause hardship. The parties, who divorced in 2014, had no children. The husband, aged 50, was employed in his own business, while the wife, aged 52, held qualifications as a (occupation omitted) and had a varied employment history.

The primary legal issues before the court were the division of the parties' property interests and the allocation of financial responsibilities related to those assets. This included determining the wife's contributions to the marriage, particularly in light of her educational pursuits and intermittent employment, and the husband's financial support during the early years of the relationship and his contribution of pre-relationship savings to the purchase of the matrimonial home. The court was required to consider the various assets, including a property in Victoria, shares, a bank account, investments, chattels, superannuation, and business interests, in order to make a just and equitable distribution.

The court's reasoning involved assessing the evidence regarding the parties' contributions, both financial and non-financial, throughout the marriage. Judge Young made findings of fact regarding the wife's employment history and the husband's financial support, noting discrepancies in the parties' accounts but ultimately finding the husband to be a more accurate historian in some respects. The court applied principles of property adjustment under the *Family Law Act*, considering the length of the marriage, the contributions of each party, and their future needs. The orders reflected a division of assets and liabilities, with specific directions for the transfer of property interests, payment of sums, and sale of shares.

The court ordered the wife to transfer her interest in the Property A house to the husband, with the sum of $65,142 to be paid by the wife to the husband, to be used first for discharging the mortgage on that property. Any shortfall in discharging the mortgage was to be paid by the husband. The parties were to confer on the sale of shares, with proceeds to be applied to discharge loans, costs, and then divided equally, with the husband's share to be applied to the Property A mortgage if necessary. The wife was to transfer her interest in a joint bank account to the husband, and the husband was to transfer his interest in an investment to the wife. Other orders dealt with the division of chattels, superannuation, business interests, and a Queensland house.