HOLT & FOY

In this matter before Coleman J, the parties, husband and wife, were engaged in a dispute concerning the settlement of their property interests following their separation. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate division of the parties' net assets, which ultimately resulted in the wife receiving 37.62 percent and the husband 62.38 percent of the total.

The primary legal issues before the court included the proper approach to asset division, specifically whether an asset-by-asset method was appropriate, and the consideration of various factors under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for any necessary adjustments to the property entitlements. The court also had to consider the capital gains tax implications arising from the property settlement.

Coleman J applied the principles established in *Norbis & Norbis* (1986) 161 CLR 513, adopting an asset-by-asset approach to the property division. The court made an adjustment of $200,000 pursuant to section 75(2)(o), taking into account the disparity in entitlements, the husband's lack of full and frank disclosure, his unsatisfactory evidence regarding earning capacity, and his greater capacity to derive investment income. No adjustments were made under section 75(2)(b) solely to "balance up" disparate entitlements, nor under section 75(2)(n)(a) as child support would be paid. Furthermore, no adjustments were made under section 75(2)(k) as there was no evidence that the wife's earning capacity was adversely impacted by her role as a caregiver, and no adjustments were made under section 75(2)(m) as the husband did not demonstrate relevant financial advantages from cohabitation with his new partner.

The court made detailed orders regarding the transfer of property, including the G property, interests in the J Foy Family Trust, motor vehicles, furniture, and effects. Each party was to retain their superannuation interests. Crucially, the controlled monies account was to be paid, with a specified sum to the wife and the remainder to the husband, with the husband indemnifying the wife for any income tax liability on interest earned. All outstanding applications and cross-applications, save for costs, were dismissed.