IRVING & PARKES

This matter concerned parenting and property orders made by Judge Small. The dispute involved the division of assets and arrangements for the parties' children, X and Y.

The court was required to determine the date of separation of the parties, which was a crucial factor in the property settlement. The husband contended for a later separation date than the wife, impacting the valuation and distribution of assets.

Judge Small considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding their separation. The husband argued for a separation date in July 2011, citing continued cohabitation, joint accounts, and shared responsibilities. He also explained his 2008 email referencing "irreconcilable differences" as pertaining to their business relationship. The wife, however, argued for an earlier separation date in 2005 or 2008, supported by the husband's email and the wife reverting to her maiden name. The court noted the husband's concession that the parties had ceased their sexual relationship in 2001 but continued to share a bedroom, albeit in separate beds. The court also considered the timing of the wife's professional qualifications and the change in the company name.

The court made various parenting and property orders. These included specific arrangements for child changeovers, a payment of $25,270 from the wife to the husband within 60 days, and the relinquishment of the husband's interest in Property P upon payment. The orders also detailed the sale of Property P if the payment was not made by the due date, with specific distribution of proceeds. Further orders addressed the sale of Property H, the division of net proceeds, and liability for any shortfall. The court also made provision for a Registrar to sign documents if the wife failed to comply with the sale of Property P, pursuant to s 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975*. Each party was to retain other property in their possession, joint bank accounts were to be divided equally, and each party was to be solely liable for liabilities encumbering property they received. The husband's application for a Departure Order was dismissed.