HENNE & HENNE

In *Henne & Henne*, the parties, Mr Henne (respondent husband) and Ms Henne (applicant wife), brought an application for property adjustment orders pursuant to s.79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The central dispute concerned the valuation of various assets, particularly a property purchased in the wife's name with funds provided entirely by her parents post-separation. The court was required to determine whether a resulting trust was presumed and, if so, whether that presumption was displaced, and whether the presumption of advancement was rebutted. Further, the court had to assess the future needs of the parties to ensure a just and equitable outcome.

Judge Harper reasoned that while a resulting trust might ordinarily be presumed when a property is purchased in one party's name with funds provided by another, this presumption was displaced in this instance. The court found that the parents' intention was not to retain a beneficial interest in the property, but rather to gift the funds to their daughter. Consequently, the presumption of advancement, which presumes a gift where a husband or father provides for a wife or child, was also considered and found to be rebutted by the evidence. The court concluded that the property and its associated liability should be included in the asset pool for division.

The court made various orders to effect the property adjustment. These included the distribution of funds from a joint bank account, with specific percentages of accrued interest and a capital sum allocated to the husband, and the balance to the wife. The wife was declared the sole legal and beneficial owner of her interest in Business H, while the husband was declared the sole legal and beneficial owner of his shareholding in Business I, with the husband to indemnify the wife against any liabilities related to Business I. Ownership of a boat and box trailer was also vested solely in the husband. Each party was declared the sole owner of other property in their possession and solely responsible for their personal liabilities, except as otherwise ordered. The court also provided for the appointment of a Registrar to execute documents if a party refused to comply with the orders, and set a timeframe for any applications regarding costs.