HOOPER & HOOPER

This case concerned a dispute between a husband and wife regarding property settlement and parenting arrangements following their separation. The parties had been in a relationship for approximately 3.5 years and had one child. The property dispute involved the composition of the asset pool, including the husband's cessation of operating a sole director and sole shareholder company after separation, potential waste, a Division 7A tax liability, and the husband's high income. The parenting dispute focused on whether the husband should be permitted to have a nominee collect or drop off the child, and whether he should be allowed to arrange for the child's supervision by others if he was unable to do so personally.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. In relation to property, these included whether the husband's cessation of his company's operations constituted waste, whether a potential Division 7A tax liability should be factored into the property division, and whether an adjustment under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 was warranted in the wife's favour, considering the husband's high income. For parenting, the court needed to decide on the terms of the father's time with the child, specifically concerning the use of nominees for pick-ups and drop-offs, and the extent to which he could delegate supervision of the child to other adults during his time with her.

The court made orders addressing both property and parenting. In parenting, it allowed for the father or a nominee known to the child to collect and return the child, with specific arrangements for school days and other times. It also clarified that the father could make arrangements for the child to be cared for by another adult if he reasonably deemed it necessary during his time with the child. In property, the husband was ordered to pay the wife a sum of $362,477.47 within 60 days. The orders also detailed the process for the sale of a property if the payment was not made, including provisions for agent nomination and sale conditions, with the proceeds to be distributed with a specific percentage split adjusted by a sum of $28,473.71. The husband was also made solely responsible for any ATO liabilities arising from his businesses and Division 7A tax, and was ordered to indemnify the wife against such liabilities. Furthermore, a superannuation splitting order was made, allocating a base amount to the wife from the husband's interest in a superannuation fund.