Jacobsen & Jacobsen (No 3) - [2024] FedCFamC1F 11

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Jacobsen & Jacobsen (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 11

File number: SYC 3701 of 2018

Judgment of: BRASCH J

Date of judgment: 23 January 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where many disputed items in the Balance Sheet – Where many addbacks sought – Where wife sought a post separation contribution adjustment in her favour – Where contributions found to be equal being $12.6 million to each party – Where wife sought a 10 per cent adjustment for s 75(2) factors and, in addition, most income earning investment properties

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, VIIIAB, ss 75(2), 79, 79(1), 79(2), 79(4)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 44

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Adamson v Adamson (2014) 51 Fam LR 626; [2014] FamCAFC 232

AJO and GRO (2005) FLC 93-218; [2005] FamCA 195

Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337; [1981] HCA 1

Babett & Falconer (2015) FLC 98-067; [2015] FamCAFC 124

Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600; [1993] FamCA 95

Black and Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287; [1992] FamCA 2

Browne & Green (1999) FLC 92-873; [1999] FamCA 1483

C & C [1998] FamCA 143

Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595; [1995] FamCA 10

Dickons & Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244; [2012] FamCAFC 154

Dovgan & Dovgan [2021] FamCA 306

Fielding and Nichol [2014] FCWA 77

G and G (2000) FLC 93-043; [2000] FamCA 1075

Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143; [2003] FamCA 395

Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd and Penrith Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378

In the Marriage of Nutting (1977) FLC 90-410

Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898; [2019] FamCAFC 78

Jacobsen & Jacobsen [2023] FedCFamC1F 669

Kowalski and Kowalski (1993) FLC 92-342; [1992] FamCA 54

M & M [1998] FamCA 42

Maine & Maine (2016) 56 Fam LR 500; [2016] FamCAFC 270

Mallet& Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605; [1984] HCA 21

Perrin & Perrin(No 2) [2018] FamCAFC 122

Rosati v Rosati (1998) FLC 92-804; [1998] FamCA 38

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52

Trevi & Trevi (2018) FLC 93-858; [2018] FamCAFC 173

W v W (1997) FLC 92-723; [1997] FamCA 3

Waters and Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635; [1995] FamCA 101

Weir and Weir (1993) FLC 92-338; [1992] FamCA 69

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 329

Date of hearing: 9–20 October 2023

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Cummings SC with Mr Butters

Solicitor for the Applicant: Barkus Doolan Winning

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Gillies SC with Mr Alexander

Solicitor for the Respondent: Lander & Rogers
ORDERS

SYC3701 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR JACOBSEN
Applicant

AND:
MS JACOBSEN
Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BRASCH J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 JANUARY 2024

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
Definitions
In these Orders the following definitions apply:
A.“Property U” means the property situated at and known as Property U in the State of New South Wales, folio identifier ….
B.“Property D” means the property situated at and known as Property D in the State of New South Wales, folio identifier ….
C.“Property G” means the property situated at and known as Property G in the State of New South Wales, folio identifier ….
D.“Property E” means the property situated at and known as Property E in the State of New South Wales, folio identifier ….
E.“H Pty Ltd” and “H Pty Ltd” means H Pty Ltd, wherein the husband and wife each own one ordinary share and the Husband is the Sole Director of the entity.
F.“Property W” means the property situated at and known as Property W (also known as Property W), folio identifier ….
G.“The Superannuation Fund” means the AB Pty Ltd ATF Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund, of which the husband and wife, Ms AC and Ms AD are members.
H.“Property B” means the property situated at and known Property B in the State of New South Wales, folio identifier ….
I.“Time share, Town N” means the jointly held timeshare arrangement situated at AE Street, Suburb AF.
J.“Property T” means the property situated at and known as Property T in the State of New South Wales, folio identifier ….
K.“Property EE” means the property situated at and known as Property EE in the State of New South Wales, folio identifier ….
L.“Property V” means the property situated at and known as Property V in the State of New South Wales, folio identifier ….

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Sale of the Property W
1.The wife is to forthwith place the Property W on the market for sale, using a real estate agent and conveyancer of her choice, and auctioneer if relevant, using the agreed value of the property being $1,070,000 as the sale price and/or reserve.
2.The husband is to forthwith withdraw any caveat he has lodged (if any) against the title of the Property W.
3.Upon the sale of the Property W, the wife is to do all things and sign all documents necessary to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:
(a)Discharge any mortgage or other encumbrances secured on title of the Property W (if any);
(b)In payment of any rate adjustments;
(c)In payment of the expenses of the sale, including agent's and/or auctioneer’s commissions, advertising expenses, legal expenses and disbursements; and
(d)The balance to be paid to the wife, with the wife solely responsible for the Capital Gains Tax arising from the sale.

H Pty Ltd and Motor Vehicle 1
4.Within 28 days of the date of these orders and contemporaneously with the Order 5, the husband, in his capacity as Director of H Pty Ltd shall do all things necessary to cause H Pty Ltd to transfer, free of encumbrance, Motor Vehicle 1 presently driven by the wife to the sole name of the wife and:
(a)The wife shall thereafter indemnify and keep indemnified the husband and H Pty Ltd in relation to all liabilities in respect of the motor vehicle whenever and however arising following the transfer;
(b)The husband shall cause the financial burden of that transaction to be recorded in the accounts of the company to his loan account; and
(c)The husband shall indemnify the wife in relation to any fringe benefits he asserts are owing by the wife in relation to the motor vehicle.

5.Within 28 days of the date of these orders and contemporaneously with Order 4, the wife shall sign all documents presented to her and provide all necessary consents, directions and authorities required and presented to her by the husband and the husband shall do all other things necessary to cause the following simultaneously and at the husband’s costs in relation to H Pty Ltd:
(a)Transfer by the wife of all shares and interests in H Pty Ltd to the husband or the husband's nominee;
(b)Resign all offices, positions and employment (if any);
(c)Assigning by the wife to the husband and/or the husband's nominee all credit loan accounts standing in the wife's name and the parties' names jointly;
(d)Assumption by the husband from the wife all debit loan accounts (including shareholder accounts) standing in the wife's name and the parties' names jointly;
(e)The husband shall procure for the wife a release from liability, if any, pursuant to all mortgage, financial facilities and charges in relation to the company, directors or personal guarantees to any creditor of the company (the guarantees) and the receipt by the wife of a letter from the creditors stating the wife is released from all personal liability in respect of any actions, claims, suits, and demands arising under the guarantees shall be sufficient evidence of compliance by the husband with this paragraph;
(f)The husband shall indemnify and shall keep indemnified the wife in respect of all actions, claims, suits and demands as may be made against the company and in relation to all liabilities in relation to the company, whenever and however arising, including but not limited to all taxation liabilities of the company or either party personally arising in connection with any interest, shareholder loan account, office or employment in relation to that company; and
(g)As between the parties, the husband shall thereafter be solely entitled to all interests in relation to the company.

Bank Accounts and shares
6.Within 28 days of the date of these orders, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to:
(a)Cause the following accounts to be closed and the balance of the funds standing in the accounts to be transferred to the husband:
(i)Westpac account ending …58;
(ii)Westpac account ending …60; and
(iii)J Bank Account ending …76;

(b)Transfer the AG Shares to the husband and share equally any costs associated with the transfer.

The sculpture
7.Within 28 days, or such other time as can be accommodated by professional removalists, the husband is to take all steps necessary to cause the removal of the sculpture at Property T at his cost, and to pay for any repairs caused by the removal of the sculpture.
8.The husband through his solicitor is to arrange a time for the removal of the sculpture and repairs with the wife through her solicitors.
9.The husband is permitted to accompany the removalists on to the Property T to supervise the removal of the sculpture and any repairs.

Property transfers and money payments
10.Within 90 days of the date of these orders, or such other time as agreed by the parties in writing, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to cause the following simultaneously:
Property T
(a)Transfer of the Property T to the sole name of the wife such that the husband shall sign all transfer documents presented to him by the wife and the wife shall do all other things necessary for such transfer;
(b)The husband pay, or cause to be paid, the sum of $251,000 towards the Westpac home loan account ending …78 presently registered over the Property T and with the husband and wife to sign all documents necessary to refinance the remaining balance in to the wife’s sole name, or, for the wife to discharge the remaining balance at the wife’s election and cost; and
(c)The wife shall thereafter indemnify and keep indemnified the husband in respect of all liabilities in relation to the Property T whenever and however arising;
Property B
(d)Transfer the Property B to the sole name of the wife at the wife's cost, such that the husband shall do all things and sign all documents presented to him by the wife and the wife shall do all other things necessary to effect such transfer; and
(e)The wife shall thereafter indemnify and keep indemnified the husband in respect of all liabilities in relation to the Property B whenever and however arising;

Property E
(f)Transfer the Property E to the sole name of the wife at the wife's cost, such that the husband shall do all things and sign all documents presented to him by the wife and the wife shall do all other things necessary to effect such transfer; and
(g)The wife shall thereafter indemnify and keep indemnified the husband in respect of all liabilities in relation to the Property E whenever and however arising;

Time share
(h)Transfer “Week 52” and “Week 1” of the jointly held time share, Town N to the sole name of the husband at the husband’s cost;

Caveats
(i)Except as otherwise provided in these orders, each party is to withdraw all caveats lodged against the title of any property;

Money payment
(j)The wife pay the husband the sum of $157,594.02;
(k)Nothing in this order prevents the husband and wife from agreeing to reduce the payment required by the husband in Order 10(b) by the payment by the wife in Order 10(j);

Title deeds
(l)The wife is to the deliver to the husband all title deeds she may have in her possession, power or control relating to any real estate in the husband's name, the name of the superannuation fund and/or H Pty Ltd; and
(m)The husband is to the deliver to the wife all title deeds he may have in his possession, power or control relating to any real estate in the wife’s name or property to be transferred to her by these orders.

Sale of Property E
11.Upon the transfer of Property E to the wife, the wife is to forthwith place Property E on the market for sale, using a real estate agent and conveyancer of her choice, and auctioneer if relevant, using the agreed value of the property being $435,000 as the sale price and/or reserve.
12.Upon the sale of Property E, the wife is to do all things and sign all documents necessary to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:
(a)Discharge any mortgage or other encumbrances secured on the title of Property E (if any);
(b)In payment of any rate adjustments;
(c)In payment of the expenses of the sale, including agent's and/or auctioneer’s commissions, advertising expenses, legal expenses and disbursements; and
(d)The balance to be paid to the wife, with the wife solely responsible for the Capital Gains Tax arising from the sale.

ATO debt
13.Within 90 days of the wife providing to the husband a current assessment of her income tax for the period from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, the husband shall pay or cause to be paid to the Australian Taxation Office the sum required to extinguish that debt to an amount not greater than $510,440.33 on behalf of the wife.

Jacobsen Family Super Fund
Superannuation Split to the husband
14.In accordance with s 90XT(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the husband is entitled to the specified percentage, being 100 per cent of the wife's interest in Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund and the entitlement of the wife is correspondingly reduced.
15.Order 14 herein has effect from the first operative time and the first operative time is four (4) days after service of a sealed copy of this order on the Trustee of the Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund.
16.The Trustee shall do all such acts and things and have signed all such documents as may be necessary to cause the accountants for Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund to:
(a)Calculate, in accordance with the requirements of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 the entitlement created for the husband in Order 14 herein; and
(b)Pay the entitlement to the husband whenever the trustees make a splittable payment from the wife's interest in the Fund.

17.Orders 14 to 16 (inclusive) herein bind the Trustee of the Fund.

Superannuation Split to the wife
18.The Court allocates as required by s 90XT(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a base amount of $727,000 to the wife out of the husband's interest in the Fund.
19.In accordance with s 90XT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the entitlement of the husband in the Fund (or the entitlement of such other person who becomes entitled to receive a payment out of the husband's superannuation interest) is correspondingly reduced by force of this Order.
20.Orders 18 and 19 herein have effect consequent upon compliance with Orders 14 to 16 (inclusive) of these orders from the second operative time and the second operative time is 10 days after service of a sealed copy of this Order on the Trustee of the Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund.
21.The Trustee of the Fund shall do all such acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary to pay the entitlement by way of cleared funds whenever the Trustee makes a splittable payment from the husband's interest in the Fund.

Notice by each of the parties
22.After service of the payment split notice in accordance with the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (“the SIS Regulations”), the Trustee shall do all such things and sign all documents as may be necessary, including but not limited to exercising all discretions as may be necessary to comply with and secure approval of the wife's request in accordance with the SIS regulations, for the rollover or transfer of her interest to a complying superannuation fund of the wife's choosing in accordance with the SIS Regulations.
23.Orders 18 to 22 herein bind the Trustees of the Fund.

Meeting of Trustee
24.Within 28 days of the date of this Order, the Trustee shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to cause a meeting of Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund to be held in accordance with the Rules of the Trust Deed for Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund, the purpose of that meeting being:
(a)To note receipt of the request by the wife to transfer her total benefit to the wife’s new superannuation fund;
(b)To note receipt by the husband to have a new interest calculated in his name in the Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund;
(c)To authorise the transfer of the total amount of the wife’s benefits to the wife’s new superannuation fund; and
(d)To authorise the creation of a new interest in the husband's name in Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund.

25.Before the close of the meeting of the Directors of the Trustee Company and provided that Orders 14 to 21 (inclusive) of these orders have been complied with, the wife shall:
(a)Resign her membership from Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund;
(b)Do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to resign as a director of the Trustee Company; and
(c)Transfer to the husband her shareholding in the Trustee Company.

26.As and from the date of the husband’s compliance with the above superannuation Orders, the husband indemnify and keep indemnified the wife in respect of her previous involvement with the Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund in any capacity whether as a member of the said Fund and/or in respect of the Trustee of said Fund.

Indemnities and Protections
27.In the event there is any net tax payable by the Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund, or by either of the husband or the wife, or a tax refund issues as a consequence of the splitting and rolling over of the wife’s entitlement by the Trustee to the wife’s new superannuation fund (“the wife's superannuation rollover”), the following shall occur:
(a)In the event of a taxation liability, the husband and wife each pay or cause to be paid one half of any such liability forthwith upon receipt of any Notice of Assessment issued by the Australian Taxation Office; or
(b)In the event of a tax refund, the husband and wife forthwith cause the said refund to be divided between them equally.

28.Pending the wife's superannuation roll over, each of the husband and wife shall be and is hereby restrained from dealing with and/or disposing of any of the assets of the Superannuation Fund other than in accordance with the terms of these orders or with the joint written consent of the directors of the Trustee Company (which consent will not be unreasonably withheld).
29.Pending the wife's superannuation roll over, each of the husband and wife shall immediately revoke any binding death benefit nomination already made and each party be and is hereby restrained from:
(a)Making any binding death benefit nomination in favour of a child described in regulation 13 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001;

(b)Making any other nomination where the effect of such nomination would be to render any splittable payment not splittable; and
(c)Doing any such act or thing which would defeat, extinguish or reduce the entitlement of either party under these Orders.

General retention clauses
30.Subject to the above orders, the husband shall retain all interests in and entitlement to:
(a)Property G and mortgage;
(b)Property EE;
(c)Property O;
(d)Property F property;
(e)The husband’s interest in H Pty Ltd including the transfer of the wife’s interest to him;
(f)AH Pty Ltd;
(g)Joint bank account balances and the AG Shares;
(h)Bank accounts in the husband’s sole name;
(i)Vehicles and registration plates in the name of the husband or H Pty Ltd;
(j)Weeks 52 and 1 in the timeshare in ‘[Time Share, Town N]’ property at Suburb AF, Queensland;
(k)Westpac share portfolio containing shares in AJ Company and AK Limited;
(l)Jewellery, inheritances and household contents;
(m)The sculpture;
(n)Outstanding monies owed by Mr AL to the husband;
(o)Money in his solicitor’s trust account after meeting his legal costs and disbursements;
(p)Long service leave owed by H Pty Ltd;
(q)The husband’s previous financial year taxation liability;
(r)His 50 per cent of Company M Shares taxation;
(s)The wife’s outstanding taxation liability up to the amount of $510,433;
(t)The personal loan from Ms AD;
(u)His superannuation member entitlements;
(v)All frequent flyer points in his name; and
(w)All other assets and financial resources of whatsoever nature and kind in the husband's name, possession and/or control.

31.Subject to the above orders, the wife shall retain all interests in and entitlement to:
(a)Property T and mortgage, subject to payment by the husband of $251,000 (or as per Order 10(k));
(b)Property B;
(c)Property E;
(d)Property V;
(e)Property W;
(f)The wife’s interest in WW Company;
(g)Bank accounts in her sole name;
(h)AM Limited, AN Limited and AP Company shares;
(i)Jewellery, inheritances and household contents;
(j)Money in her solicitor’s trust account after meeting her legal costs and disbursements;
(k)Realisation costs and CGT on sale of the Property E;
(l)Realisation costs and CGT on sale of the Property W;
(m)Her 50 per cent of Company M Shares taxation;
(n)The personal loan from AQ Investments Pty Ltd;
(o)Her Superannuation member entitlements;
(p)All frequent flyer points in her name; and
(q)All other assets and financial resources of whatsoever nature and kind in the wife’s name, possession and/or control.

Indemnities
32.Save as otherwise provided by these orders, the wife shall remain solely liable for all liabilities in her sole name and the wife shall indemnify and keep indemnified the husband in relation to these liabilities, all liabilities in the name of the wife, including the wife's credit cards, tax liabilities and loan to AQ Investments Pty Ltd or any other party.
33.Save as otherwise provided by these orders, the husband shall remain solely liable for all liabilities in his sole name and the husband shall indemnify and keep indemnified the wife in respect of all actions, claims, suits and demands as may be made against the husband in relation to all liabilities in the name of the husband, including the husband's credit cards, tax liabilities, any loan owing to H Pty Ltd, his mother or any other party.

Interpretation / implementation / s 106A
34.The parties are at liberty to approach chambers by email (...@...), copying the other party asking to re-list the matter on issues of interpretation and/or implementation.
35.In the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to these orders then the Registrar of the Court be appointed pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to execute such deed or instrument in the name of the defaulting party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instrument upon the Registrar being provided with verification of such refusal or failure by way of affidavit.

Finalisation
36.All undertakings provided by the parties and all Orders other than the final parenting Orders are discharged.
37.Any outstanding applications are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BRASCH J:
INTRODUCTION

Mr Jacobsen (“the husband”) and Ms Jacobsen (“the wife”) have been in dispute about parenting, property and child support since the husband initiated proceedings on 13 June 2018 and the wife responded on 17 July 2018.
During the 10-day trial in October 2023, parenting orders were made by consent and the child support dispute fell away. With respect to property, the parties started with relatively little but through hard work and property investment choices have amassed an asset pool of just over $25.2 million. The husband said the pool, as he proposed, ought be equally divided. The wife sought a 65 per cent division in her favour on her pool with numerous addbacks mainly on the husband’s side of the ledger and the bulk of the income earning investments on top.
BACKGROUND
The husband was born in 1975. The wife was born in 1976.
The parties commenced cohabitation in 1999 or 2000. Nothing turns on this. The parties married in 2001.
There are two children of the marriage, X born 2006 and Y born 2009 (“the children”).
In 2007, the family business, H Pty Ltd was registered. The husband is the sole director of H Pty Ltd. The husband and wife were and remain equal shareholders. It is common ground that: the husband ‘is’ H Pty Ltd; it was largely the source of funds to acquire assets; and, that when together, the parties essentially lived out of H Pty Ltd, with accountants making end of financial year adjustments to the books often via loan accounts to the parties.
The parties finally separated on 28 August 2017 and the husband left the former matrimonial home on 7 September 2017. The children lived primarily with their mother until June 2023 when X self-placed with his father.
Appropriately, given X’s age, neither party sought parenting orders about him. Y will spend week-about with her parents, half-holidays and other special occasions, but from Term 1 2026 will live with her parents according to her wishes during term time.
Material
Both parties filed Outline of Case documents and Minutes of Orders. A Balance Sheet containing each parties’ contentions became Exhibit 46.
The applicant husband relied upon the following material:
·Initiating Application filed 13 June 2018;
·Affidavit of Mr Jacobsen filed 5 September 2023;
·Financial Statement filed 28 September 2023;
·Affidavit of Ms OO filed 5 September 2023;
·Affidavit of Ms OO filed 18 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Mr AR filed 5 September 2023; and
·Affidavit of Mr LL filed 5 September 2023.
All of the husband’s witnesses were required for cross-examination.
The respondent wife relied upon the following material:
·Amended Response to Final Orders filed 23 August 2019;
·Affidavit of Dr AS filed 4 September 2023;
·Affidavit of Ms AC filed 4 September 2023, but only paragraphs 57-58 and 120;
·Affidavit of Mr AT filed 4 September 2023;
·Notice to Admit filed 20 September 2023;
·Notice Disputing Fact or Document filed 4 October 2023; and
·Husband’s Financial Statement filed 17 August 2018.
Ms AC and Dr AS were not required for cross-examination. Ms AC said she does not pay any rent or board to the wife (with whom she resides in the former matrimonial home), purchases her own groceries, and occasionally helps with household chores and care of the children.
Dr AS said she had diagnosed the wife as having anxiety and depression since early 2016. Dr AS also spoke of things the wife self-reported about family violence, but no Kennon claim was pressed before me.
Both parties relied upon the following Single Expert reports:
·Affidavit of Mr AU filed 4 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Mr AV filed 4 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Mr AW filed 4 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Mr AX filed 4 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Mr AY filed 5 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Ms AZ filed 9 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Mr BA filed 10 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Mr BC filed 6 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Ms P sworn 14 December 2020;
·Affidavit of Ms P filed 4 October 2023;
·Affidavit of Ms P filed 12 October 2023; and
·Affidavit of Ms P filed 18 October 2023.
Only Ms P was required for cross-examination.
In total, 47 Exhibits came into evidence during the course of proceedings. The parties also handed up various Aides Memoir.
The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities; s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
It is well settled that it is not necessary for a trial judge, in reaching a decision, to refer to every piece of evidence or argument presented during the trial (see for example, Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447 per Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Gummow JJ, and, Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd and Penrith Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 at 385–386 per Mahoney JA).
CREDIT
Part of the wife’s case was that the husband had, inter alia, purposefully depleted the asset pool, “siphoned off money”, taken money from a safe, been “dishonest” about fringe benefits, took her engagement ring, been dilatory with disclosure, and that the H Pty Ltd financials and the husband’s claims about financial transactions could not be trusted.
Rather than make overall findings of credit, I consider it more useful to look at disclosure as a s 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) factor, and the many complaints of the wife about finances, which find their way into her proposed asset pool, when determining the balance sheet.
I am also conscious of what was said in Adamson v Adamson (2014) 51 Fam LR 626 at [168]. Whilst this is not a parenting case, the reality for X and Y is that their parents still have many years of parenting to do even after they turn 18 years:
168. ... These parties are, and will remain, the parents of D and K and adverse credit findings in this decision carry the inherent risk that, rather than bringing an end to long-standing conflictual issues, they may be embraced as vindication for the pursuit of further conflict in the future.
That said, both parties made errors in what they said in their material. For example, the husband accepted he was wrong when he said he paid $531,080 for Fringe Benefits Tax (“FBT”) from a bonus he received in 2020. I do not consider that a credit issue though and was amply explained by his accountant Ms OO in her second affidavit. Instead, whilst the husband impressed me as astute in business, the wife successfully demonstrated the husband had a limited understanding of the accounting upon which the business rested nor the tax consequences for the business. I appreciate he is the director of the entity and that brings with it fiduciary obligations, but given his limited knowledge of accounting and taxation issues he wisely relied on professionals to assist him. Indeed, it would have been imprudent of him to chart his own course with respect to the company accounts and taxation. He had meetings and discussions with his advisers and when he was told to pay monies to the Australian Tax Office (“the ATO”) he did. There is nothing unusual, suspicious or sinister about a director of a company relying on professionals such as accountants to guide their decision making. It is also not surprising he was wrong on things like the source of payment for FBT given the passage of time and many transactions undertaken by H Pty Ltd.
Equally, the wife had many errors in her affidavit and schedules, some of which were corrected in evidence in chief, further were handed up by a written list and others conceded in cross-examination. An example of the last category was the wife’s Annexure MSJ-28 concerning “PURCHASES MADE BY [MR JACOBSEN] IN HOLIDAY DESTINATIONS AND CALCULATED BUSINESS DAYS THERE” for financial years 2017 to 2023. It contained double ups in entries (for example, including 2017 entries in her 2018 tally) and mathematical errors (for example, calculating 23 to 26 June 2018 as being 15 business days). I do not consider that an issue of credit though, but mistakes in the wife’s analysis of transaction after transaction to create all sorts of schedules. A further example is the wife having different amounts in different documents for cash she twice took from a safe at the former matrimonial home in mid-January 2018. Again, I consider that poor quality control and not a matter of credit.
However, I do not accept the evidence of Mr AT, the wife’s brother. The wife was taken to part of his affidavit where Mr AT asserted the wife told him the husband was removing dividend income on some Company M shares (Affidavit of Mr AT filed 4 September 2023, paragraph 30(b)). The wife said that was wrong. Mr AT maintained his paragraph about the Company M share dividends was right. I prefer the wife’s concession against interest, over her brother’s partisan stance. Indeed, the wife deposed that she has taken the entirety of Company M share dividends on a number of occasions. In another example, Mr AT sought to portray he had distanced himself from the husband post-separation but the texts between the two told a story of shared comradery and warm friendship. I have formed the view Mr AT said what he thought he needed to, to support his sister.
I will refer to the other witnesses when relevant to issues in dispute in these reasons.
PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Part VIII of the Act sets out the legislative provisions relating to property orders that may be sought when parties are or were married. The central provision is s 79 of the Act, which gives the Court power to make such orders for the alteration of property interests as it considers appropriate; s 79(1).
Section 79(2) of the Act provides that:
(2)The court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the order.
Section 79(4) of the Act set outs the factors to be taken into account in considering what order, if any, should be made. To that end, the High Court in Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 (“Stanford”) at [35] confirmed that before an order is made adjusting the parties’ property, the Court is required to make a determination that it is just and equitable to do so. That determination is to be made, however, not as a discrete or preliminary issue.
In Stanford the High Court made clear at [37] that it is necessary to begin consideration of whether it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order by identifying, according to ordinary common law and equitable principles, the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property.
The well recognised four-step process (see Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143 (“Hickey”) at [39]) requires the court to:
(1)Identify and value, the parties' property, liabilities and financial resources at the date of the hearing;
(2)Identify and assess the contributions of the parties as referred to in s 79(4)(a)-(c) of the Act and determine the contribution based entitlements of the parties expressed as a percentage of the net value of the property of the parties, whether examined on a global approach or an asset by asset approach;
(3)Identify and assess the other factors relevant including, the matters referred to in s 79(4)(d)-(g) including s 75(2) of the Act and determine the adjustment (if any) to be made to the entitlements of the parties; and
(4)Consider the effect of the findings arising from the above and resolve what order is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.
The Full Court in Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600 (“Bevan”) at [72]–[73] held that the decision inStanfordhas not overruled the four step approach.
The Balance Sheet
The parties’ balance sheet (Exhibit 46) is reproduced at Annexure A. It is too long to include in these Reasons. After the balance sheet was handed up, both parties amended some figures. I have reflected those amendments by striking out the original figure and underlining the amendment in the annexure. I now turn to the items in the balance sheet adopting the parties’ sub-headings in Exhibit 46.
Items 1-9: Real Estate
The values for the real properties are agreed. The dispute is over who will keep three of the nine items of realty. I will deal with that later.
Items 10-13: Business entities
Items 12 and 13 are agreed at a nil value. The wife disputes items 10 and 11, being the parties’ interests in H Pty Ltd. The Single Expert, Ms P valued H Pty Ltd at $3,964,000 as at FYE 2023 and the parties’ interests at $1,982,000 each.
The husband accepted these values, but the wife added “plus NK” in her column. The “plus NK” derived from the wife’s view that the H Pty Ltd books and the husband’s financial dealings could not be trusted.
It is also the wife’s case that the husband told her “I will run the company down and strip it of assets if you want your share of company assets” and “I will make sure it is worth a $1 and then you can buy it from me” (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 409). The husband denied having said this. Mr AT supported the wife in this regard, but I have already dealt with the unreliability of his evidence.
I ultimately determine the pool is just over $25.2 million, including H Pty Ltd at almost $4 million. It is not necessary for me to find whether he made the $1 threat or not, because what I have before me are parties with interests in a company worth almost $4,000,000, or “plus NK” on the wife’s case.
As to the “plus NK”, the wife complained:
[WIFE’S COUNSEL]: …it’s clear, we would say, that the husband has acted in a way to ensure that there was the lowest possible valuation that was achieved, the declaration of the fringe benefits tax, the timing of it, the manner in which tax debts have been crystallised for the parties in ways that they need not have been because, of course, if the loan accounts were still sitting there, they were an asset of the company. They didn’t have to be cleared at that time. That’s the very clear evidence. And we know that that’s the advice that the husband received as well. And I will go through some of the other ways that we say that we don’t – we would say to the court that the husband has not maximised the value of H Pty Ltd.
(Transcript 19 October 2023, p.646 lines 39-47)

The wife also pointed to, to name a few: the lack of accounting within the H Pty Ltd books for money advanced to a Mr AR from September 2016 to 2017; the lack of transparent documentation for personal expenses paid by the company in financial years 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2020; the lack of documentation to support the payment of wages and superannuation paid to the husband’s mother in 2018 and 2019.
A number of the matters complained about by the wife are the subject of addbacks asserted by her. That is the better place for considering those items rather than me undertaking some kind of re-valuation of H Pty Ltd on some unknown and unarticulated methodology.
The wife is also highly critical of the husband declaring a dividend in June 2019 to reduce/clear the parties’ loan accounts in H Pty Ltd. It was not suggested how I might undertake some form of re-valuing the parties’ FYE 2023 interests in H Pty Ltd by reference to this June 2019 declaration.
Despite all of the wife’s schedules and calculations, if she can only come up with a “plus NK” I do not know how she expects me to divine a figure. Further, the idea that the husband caused a downturn in H Pty Ltd fails to engage with Ms P’s evidence that what the husband said about a downturn during Covid was consistent with industry experience to which she referred.
When pressed for specifics in submissions, the wife identified that the following matters would uplift the valuation of H Pty Ltd by adding these amounts to Ms P’s figure on the basis that “if there was more in the bank, for example, then her value would specifically go up” (Transcript 19 October 2023, p.645 lines 5–6):
(a)$215,000 interest paid by the company in 2020 for the late filing of Fringe Benefits entitlement – the wife also has this in her pool at Item 54C as an addback;
(b)$195,000 advanced by the husband (when the parties were together) to Mr AR – the wife also has this in her pool at Item 50;
(c)$114,653 being the husband’s long service leave – the parties agree this is an asset at Item 42;
(d)$531,080 being a bonus paid on paper to the husband in FYE 2020, with just over $238,000 paid to the ATO and almost $293,000 used to discharge a loan account in H Pty Ltd – the wife has this in her Item 46 in the pool;
(e)$98,500 being, according to the wife, “excess superannuation and salary paid to the husband’s mother in 2018 and 2019” – the wife has this in Item 48 in her column in the balance sheet; and
(f)$65,000 for commercial rent being removed as a company expense because it is not actually being paid, and the husband could “take the business home”.
Items (a), (b), (d) and (e) will be considered under the heading of addbacks. Further, I consider it methodologically flawed to add on something paid when the parties were together (for example, much of the Mr AR money) or financial transactions made between 2015 to 2020, to a 2023 valuation. I also accept the submissions of the husband’s Senior Counsel on these topics, for example:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]: …Back in 2020 the company paid the interest as an expense. It was a tax deductible expense. There’s the first problem. The second problem is this; that it – those figures did not feature in [Ms P’s] valuation as at 2023…
(Transcript 19 October 2023, p.704 lines 26–29)
And:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]: …those matters could not have had any bearing on the 2023 valuation unless it is said – and I can’t imagine how it could be – that if the company hadn’t expended this money back in 2020, it might still have some of it left over in the bank in 2023.
Well, “expended the money” means paid the tax, and if that was the case, some of the money that was sitting in the bank would have to have been offset against the ongoing tax liability that still existed because of the fringe benefits not being properly dealt with.
(Transcript 20 October 2023, p.720 lines 2–10)
Item (c) is an agreed asset, and I will not double count it here. As for (f), I accept Ms P’s evidence that it is standard practice to add commercial rent into valuations even if not being paid. It, (f), is also premised on the husband moving H Pty Ltd to his home, which he had mused about but has no plans to activate. Backing out the $65,000 for commercial rent is also too simplistic because that does not take into account any tax implications of working from home, and the costs of setting up a home office not only for the husband but his employees. I also accept submissions of Senior Counsel for the husband:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]: …From an evidentiary point of view, your Honour couldn’t do that. That would be a case of taking one element of a valuation, and changing the ultimate valuation without looking at the other consequences. And it’s plain as can be that even – that [Ms P], insofar as the assumptions invited her to go, said, “Well, one thing that would change would be the multiple that would apply to the earnings.” But, of course, how do we know what the earnings would be in that circumstance? And then we get into the slippery slope, well, you’ve got a CGT‑impregnated asset, and is there going to be a 75(2)(o) adjustment for that, given that that would then be a surplus to requirement asset?
It could be leased or it could be sold. And it hasn’t been addressed in the evidence because the evidence is that it’s going to be used. So that would be a wormhole if your Honour chose to, with great respect, go down there.
(Transcript 20 October 2023, p.732 line 39 to p.733 line 3)
For the reasons given, I will not divine an actual value to “plus NK”. I will consider the matters identified by the wife as addbacks when I look at that topic, and, will not back out the commercial rent. I find the parties’ interests in H Pty Ltd to be those determined by Ms P.
Items 14 -21: Bank accounts
These values are agreed.
Items 22 -26B: Motor vehicle and number plates
These values are agreed.
Items 27- 30: Shares
Items 28, 29 and 30 are agreed. Item 27 concerns the value to ascribe to the shares representing two weeks at a timeshare in the Town N property at Suburb AF, Queensland. The husband said $30,000 and the wife said $50,000. The husband wants the shares for both weeks. The wife wants week 52, and proposes the husband have week 1 (being weeks of the year), along with an injunction restraining the husband from entering the property in her week.
The husband submitted the $30,000 was an admission against interest. The wife suggested that if I gave them a week each, then I could take the item out of the pool.
The parties purchased Week 52 and Week 1 in 2015 but had been holidaying there before that and prior to separation. It is common ground that the husband’s family also have timeshares in the same or overlapping weeks.
The wife says she would like to be able to take the children on a holiday there, but with the injunction already mentioned. She says the place has “high sentimental value to me because of the happy family memories we've had with the children there since they were babies” (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 1021). Those memories will endure whether she has shares for a week at Time Share Town N or not. I accept it is, per the wife, “a low-cost holiday” and is located near the homes of two of the wife’s cousins.
Because of the husband’s wider familial links with the property, I will order the husband retain both weeks and at the value conceded against his interest. Further, in circumstances where the wife does not trust the husband, bookending weeks could well be a recipe for conflict. The children also do not need any possible tension of knowing their father may be with his family in the same week the children are there with their mother. Finally, on either the husband’s 50‑50 on his pool of just over $24 million or the wife’s 65 per cent on her pool of almost $27 million, it could hardly be said the timeshare is the wife’s only holiday option with the children.
Items 31– 34: Home, contents and personal items
These values are agreed.
Items 35–42: Other assets
Only one item is in dispute in this category, being cash of $188,900, which the wife says was removed by the husband from a safe in the former matrimonial home. It is Item 36.
It was common ground that during the marriage the parties kept and accessed cash in a safe. Both had unfettered access to the money.
With respect to its removal, the wife said, in short, that in late 2017 she went to the safe and estimated there was $209,600 cash there, including one large packet which she did not open but estimated its value by reference to the size of the package. She said she made a note of her estimated total on her iPhone. The wife said she updated her note twice to account for cash she took from the safe on two dates in early 2018, but her competing documents before me differ in quantum.
The wife and children went to the Town N timeshare between 20–27 January 2018. The wife then deposed:
722. In early […] 2018, I reopened the safe and observed that most of the money was gone. I recounted the money and recorded in the same iphone note deposed above that $16,100 was left in the safe. I include this as money available to me since separation at paragraph 878 of this affidavit.
723. I therefore calculated [Mr Jacobsen] took $113,900 plus the bundle of cash out of the safe and updated my note that he therefore took $188,900 in total.
(Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraphs 722-723)
At paragraph 544 of the husband’s affidavit, he deposed:
544. [Ms Jacobsen] has accused me of removing cash from the former matrimonial home following separation. In her Affidavit filed on 3 June 2019, [Ms Jacobsen] alleged this figure to be $200,000 but in her most recent Affidavit filed on 5 June 2023, [Ms Jacobsen] alleges the figure to be $188,900. I deny removing either $200,000 or $188,900 from the safe(s) following separation. [Ms Jacobsen] and I both had access to the safe and used the funds from time to time as we had done during the marriage. …
(Husband’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 544)
In cross-examination, the husband quantified that, “Yes, I took 70 or 80 thousand dollars” post‑separation. (Transcript 12 October 2023, p.193 lines 19-33). He had intended to buy the wife a car.
The wife did not amend her balance sheet Item 36 to adopt the husband’s conceded $70,000‑$80,000 as an alternate. Her position was that $188,900 be added back to the husband’s side of the ledger. Senior Counsel for the husband submitted I would find that:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]: …each of the parties had access to some cash, that a large sum of cash went in and went out in 2017 and 2018, and your Honour could not make a finding that that was an asset which is where it sits on the balance sheet. …
(Transcript 20 October 2023, p.733 lines 35-38)
It is the wife who has the onus to persuade me that the husband took the specific sum of $188,900. She has failed to do so. First, the husband accepted he took $70,000-$80,000. On a pool of over $25.2 million, it would be more probable than not that he would concede the total alleged by the wife if he had taken it, just as he conceded putting Motor Vehicle 4 and a collector’s number plate in the asset pool to save an argument about its ownership. Second, each party had access to the safe. Third, I cannot be satisfied of the wife’s maths given the mistakes she made about what she said she took from the safe in different documents, and more so, that the calculation of cash in a sealed envelope was really only a guess. I will not include this Item in the pool.
Items 43 – 54D: Addbacks
Items 43 to 54D came under the heading “addbacks”. Some were agreed but most were asserted by the wife and resisted by the husband. However, the wife’s Senior Counsel said some of the addbacks were in the category of “don’t forget me”, in the sense (as I understand it) that they highlighted the funds the husband had access to, but not the wife. To that, Senior Counsel for the husband submitted:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]: These things that are said to be sitting here as addbacks or “don’t forget me”, that leads to a real danger of plucking them up as individual – taking them on board as individual quantified contributions, and thereby your Honour would run the risk of bypassing that process that needs to be done, that is to say to look at all of the contributions together.
(Transcript 20 October 2023, p.738 lines 13–17)
There is much force in what he says. Nevertheless, the balance sheet contains disputes which I will deal with. Before I do, it is useful to discuss the concept of an addback.
The Full Court held in AJO and GRO (2005) FLC 93-218 at [30] that addbacks fall into “three clear categories”: where the parties have expended money on legal fees; where there has been a premature distribution of matrimonial assets; and “waste” or wanton, negligent, or reckless dissipation of assets.
However, the Full Court at [39] also made it clear that an addback does not necessarily occur whenever “a party has expended money realised from the disposition of assets that existed as at the date of separation”, the Full Court describing such a proposition as “unduly simplistic”. An earlier Full Court made the same point, saying that adding back is “the exception rather than the rule” (C & C [1998] FamCA 143 at [46]).
The fundamental principle that addbacks are exceptional, reflected in the decisions just referred to, which in turn refer to a long line of authority, also mirrors what has been said in earlier decisions of the Full Court, for example, “the Family Court must take the property of a party to the marriage as it finds it” at trial (Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337 at 355. See also, Stanford, supra). An important parallel proposition is that the parties do not “go into a state of suspended economic animation” after separation (M & M [1998] FamCA 42 (“M & M”) at [2.11]). Thus, reasonably incurred expenditure does not usually come within accepted categories of addbacks.
As was highlighted in the more recent Full Court decision of Trevi & Trevi (2018) FLC 93-858 (“Trevi”) at [30] two fundamental premises emerge from AJO & GRO and the authorities preceding it. First, “adding back” is a discretionary exercise. When the discretion is exercised in favour of adding back, it reflects a decision that, exceptionally, in the particular circumstances of a case, justice and equity requires it. The second premise is its corollary: in cases that are not “exceptional” justice and equity can be achieved, not by adding back, but by the exercise of a different discretion – usually taking the matter up as a relevant s 75(2) factor. Indeed, it has been said that the latter is “a course which is, perhaps, technically more correct” than adding back to the list of existing property.
Legal fees
Items 43, 43A, 44, 44A are agreed, all of which are legal fees of almost $2.5 million. Despite agreement, the wife submitted she had to spend more than the husband because of the husband’s conduct. I do not know how I could infer that was the cause of the wife’s almost $1.4 million in legal fees. I will not assess whether the wife needed to write as many letters on the same topics as she did (see for example Exhibit 12), nor can I tell how much her many schedules and calculations would have added to her fees. For example, the wife said, “I instructed my lawyers to create and maintain a schedule of disclosure requests they made to [Mr Jacobsen's] lawyers, the dates follow up correspondence were sent, a summary of what was received and when, and the requested disclosure that remains outstanding” (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 759). That turned out to be a 151 page document. I have no idea what that cost.
Further, the schedules included her erroneous travel schedule, which I have already mentioned, and her schedules calculating the husband’s expenditure on “luxury items” including $7.10 at a juice bar, $5.06 at a hotel, $1.92 with BF Pty Ltd and $4.00 at a store. Some of her fees were spent on an interim hearing in August 2023 where she was largely unsuccessful. I have no yardstick by which I could measure or assess whether the wife’s larger legal fees were due to the husband’s conduct. In any event, it is also not clear to where the submissions would lead in terms of the agreed balance sheet items.
Item 45 was not pursued by the wife.
The great majority of the items that follow concern how the husband operated H Pty Ltd. In that regard, the husband’s Senior Counsel made the overarching submission:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]: …the wife has not proven that any conduct on the part of the husband constitutes waste and the highest it could be put even – and I don’t even accept it could be put, but the highest it could be put is that she doesn’t agree with some of the things that he has done since separation in terms of operation of the business against the background, of course, of greatly changing economic circumstances with the pandemic…
(Transcript 20 October 2023, p.715 lines 9–13)
As will become apparent when going through the Items below, I accept his submissions about the husband making decisions.
Item 46 – paper bonus used for tax and discharge of a loan account
It was common ground that when together, the parties essentially lived out of H Pty Ltd and at the end of the financial year, the accountants would prepare the accounts for tax. This involved, amongst other things, quarantining personal expenses from the company’s accounts and allocating that personal expenditure, where applicable, to the parties. The parties long used loan accounts to effect this.
At trial, the wife took exception to the loan accounts being called shareholder or joint loan accounts. She also thought it suspicious that the husband changed the name of a loan account from “Loan from [Mr Jacobsen]” [sic] to “Loan-[Mr Jacobsen & Ms Jacobsen]”. But it was common ground that even when the loan account was called “[Mr Jacobsen’s]” during the relationship, it was not exclusively used by “[Mr Jacobsen]” up to separation. For example, properties were bought in the wife’s name during the relationship, sourced from “[Mr Jacobsen’s]” loan account. I have formed the view that the name of the account is irrelevant. The parties lived out of H Pty Ltd and that had consequences each financial year.
Under this specific item, the wife seeks to addback a paper bonus paid by H Pty Ltd to the husband of $531,080 in FYE 2020. Of that amount, $238,407 was paid to the ATO for tax on the bonus. The balance of $292,860 was used to discharge a loan account within H Pty Ltd. The two amounts do not equal the total, but this is how the parties presented the joint balance sheet and the amount ‘out’ is minor.
Ms OO, one of the husband’s accountants, explained it as follows in her second affidavit:
17. To pay out the shareholder loan account, in 30 June 2020, [Mr Jacobsen] had two options, that is, to either issue a dividend or increase his wage and pay the loan account from the increase.
18. After discussing the issue with [Mr Jacobsen] and [Mr LL], we agreed for [Mr Jacobsen] to receive a bonus of $531,080. After tax of $238,407, the net amount of $292,860 was used to pay the outstanding shareholder loan account of $276,990.48.
19. [Mr Jacobsen’s] net wages for 30 June 2020 was: $510,550. Calculated as $217,690 base net wages ($360,020 less PAYG of $142,330) plus bonus net wages of $292,860 ($531,080 less PAYG of $238,407) = $510,550.
(Affidavit of [Ms OO] filed 18 October 2023, paragraphs 17-19)
Of the two options at Ms OO’s paragraph 17, the husband chose the second – he increased his salary by a bonus and paid the consequent tax and cleared the loan accounts of both the husband and wife’s shareholder obligations.
The wife said the whole amount ought be added back to the pool, but if I was against her on that, then she sought the $238,407 (the PAYG tax) be added back in the alternate – this was said to be her “major complaint”. Senior Counsel for the wife submitted that there was “no reason to declare a dividend or to declare a bonus or to take any steps to entirely clear the two loan accounts” and that there were “other options that were available to the husband” (Transcript 19 October 2023, p.660 line 47 to p.661 line 3).

Senior Counsel for the husband submitted, “It beggars belief that it could be contended by the wife that that bonus is an addback that this court should order in this case” (Transcript 19 October 2023, p.701 lines 10-12).
In written submissions he said, and I accept:
9.The evidence of both [Ms OO] and [Mr LL] was clear that whether the loan account was cleared by way of bonus payment or recording the adjustments as fringe benefits any tax detriment the nett effect on the Husband and [H Pty Ltd] was the same. The tax had to be paid either on the bonus or the FBT . In any event [Ms OO] was clear that the loan account balance as adjusted could not have been deemed fringe benefits.
10.Against the argument that the repayment of the loan balance as at 30 June 2020, could have been delayed. The nett effect on the matrimonial balance sheet would have been nil. As the $276,990 owing to [H Pty Ltd] would remain a liability on the parties and an asset of [H Pty Ltd]. The shifting of funds between [H Pty Ltd] and repayment or creation of liabilities does not change to overall asset position of the parties.
(As per the original)
(Husband’s written submissions on balance sheet disputes, paragraphs 9–10)
The wife’s complaint is really about the advice given and choices made by the husband to clear out the loan account. There was nothing wanton, reckless or negligent in the husband’s choice; the wife has failed to persuade me it was any of those things. It was not a premature distribution of funds. I accept the evidence of Ms OO on this topic and the submissions of the husband. Indeed, the advice given, and the decision taken by the husband was an entirely orthodox way to deal with the loans. Conversely, I have no doubt that if the loan accounts had not been cleared, then the parties would still be arguing about the treatment of the parties’ liabilities to the company. Or, if the husband entered into a Division 7A agreement, then more likely than not, they would be in dispute about the treatment of that too.
Accordingly, I will not addback Item 46.
I also accept Ms OO’s evidence that she incorrectly allocated some expenses to the wife’s loan account in late 2018/early 2019, when they should have been allocated to the husband (Exhibit 8). I will not reconstruct the loan accounts as the wife seemed to be suggesting. Errors in 2018 have no bearing on the 2023 valuation. I do not consider an error on the part of Ms OO to be wanton, reckless or negligent conduct auspiced by the husband.
Item 47 was not pursued by the wife.
Item 48 – “Excess” superannuation and salary paid by H Pty Ltd to Husband’s mother in 2018 and 2019
The wife seeks an addback of $98,500 for what she describes as “excess” superannuation and salary paid by H Pty Ltd to the husband’s mother. It was the husband’s evidence that his mother worked at H Pty Ltd from June 2012 to June 2019 and was paid a salary for the work she undertook during that time. The wife deposed:
691. From my review of MYOB Payroll Summary reports for FY2017, FY2018 and FY2019 [Mr Jacobsen’s] mother, [Ms AD], was paid a salary of $25,000, $18,500 and $30,000 respectively.
692. From my review of MYOB Superannuation Transaction reports, [Mr Jacobsen’s] mother was paid superannuation in lump sums in the month of June in those years, of $35,000, $25,000 and $25,000, respectively. I do not understand how these superannuation payments were calculated. …
693. I do not recall [Ms AD] working for [H Pty Ltd] during the time [Mr Jacobsen] and I were in a relationship.
(Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraphs 691–693)
The paragraphs just extracted cover three financial years, but the add back is only sought in relation to FYE 2018 and 2019. The $98,500 is the total of the salary and superannuation paid in those years and no allowance seems to have been made for what might not be an excess.
In cross-examination the wife accepted she was not with the husband’s mother “the whole time” and could not “vouch for the fact that she [the husband’s mother] never went to [H Pty Ltd]”. In any event, the wife claims this addback in relation to post-separation payments where she would have no idea what Ms Jacobsen was doing, or not.
The wife said that there was no evidence that showed how Ms Jacobsen’s wage was calculated in the particular period. The husband said he was not remunerating his mother at a commercial rate, but making it up in superannuation (Transcript 20 October 2023, p.735 lines 15-16). He said she undertook administration tasks.
The wife’s Senior Counsel submitted:
[WIFE’S COUNSEL]: …your Honour would not be persuaded that that’s an appropriate expense (a) for the company, and (b) insofar as it has been paid to the husband’s mother, that it ought to be accounted for in some way.
(Transcript 19 October 2023, p.665 lines 32-34)
Senior Counsel for the wife submitted that if it was not considered an addback then it would be an anomaly in the H Pty Ltd financial statements (Transcript 19 October 2023, p.665 lines 35–36). I have already considered credit and the “plus NK” valuation of H Pty Ltd. H Pty Ltd is a family business. The wife conceded the husband’s mother opened mail for the husband “while waiting for him to have coffee with her”. On the wife’s concession, I accept the husband’s mother did some work at H Pty Ltd and was thus entitled to be remunerated. The addback is called “excess” superannuation and salary, but it is not clear what quantum or proportion of salary and superannuation falls under that label; as the item is presented in the balance sheet, it seems to be all of it.
The wife is a trustee of the superannuation fund and conceded she signed the returns showing Ms Jacobsen’s employer contributions. There was no suggestion by the wife that Ms Jacobsen worked anywhere else for remuneration. I accept Mr Cummings SC’s submission that it is “disingenuous” of the wife to now call into question what she had previously signed off on.
Ultimately, I do not consider paying a family member a modest salary and superannuation for some administrative work to be wanton, reckless or negligent. It is also not exceptional. I will not addback Item 48.
I do not understand the wife’s alternate submissions about an anomaly on the H Pty Ltd books, and more so, what I am meant to do with that proposition for the balance sheet. It is clear the wife does not trust the H Pty Ltd books and disputes the husband’s decision making, but that does not allow me to engage in some kind of re-creation of the company books.
Item 49: Monies withdrawn from joint account #641260 and paid to H Pty Ltd
The wife sought an addback in the amended sum of $221,700 for funds removed from a joint account and transferred to H Pty Ltd (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 712.3).
The wife’s complaint was that the money went from the joint account, which she could access, to the H Pty Ltd account, which she could not access. Senior Counsel for the wife appropriately accepted that Item 49 might not be considered an addback, but said it was one of those “don’t forget me” matters as it was “another financial asset of the parties that the husband has had the sole use of, we would say, to the exclusion of the wife post separation” (Transcript 19 October 2023, p.666 lines 43-45).
The wife’s submission just referred to is emblematic of many of the wife’s complaints – that post-separation, the husband continued to live through H Pty Ltd largely as the parties did during the relationship. Conversely, post-separation, the wife did not. Similarly, the wife deposed, “The inequity of access to funds since separation, should not only be redressed but should be addressed for the future needs of me and [Mr Jacobsen]” (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 939). There are consequences of separation – financial relationships and financial access change.
Similarly, the wife was keen to share in the upside of all financial transactions and real estate increases but sought to sheet home to the husband any downside (for example the loans to Mr AR, the need to account for FBT, her own tax obligations arising from the declaration of a dividend). I accept the husband’s submission referring to Browne & Green (1999) FLC 92‑873 at [53], where the Full Court said absent any negligence, recklessness or deliberate dissipation of assets by one party, parties take the good with the bad.
Returning to Item 49, Senior Counsel for the husband referred to the husband’s unchallenged evidence that these funds were used to pay down the H Pty Ltd loan account:
758. I have explained to [Ms Jacobsen] on a number of occasions throughout these proceedings that from the period of separation until June 2019, all funds transferred from our [Property T] Loan Account or our Westpac Savings Account to the [H Pty Ltd] were used to repay monies that [Ms Jacobsen] and I had borrowed from [H Pty Ltd] during the course of the marriage.
(Husband’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 758)
I do not consider transferring money from one matrimonial pot to another matrimonial pot to be wanton, reckless or negligent. I do not consider it exceptional. The wife’s bitterness about the financial arrangements post-separation dripped off the pages of her affidavit and was palpable in her cross-examination, but that too does not make for an addback. The reality is financial affairs change on separation. It is also not consistent with authority to addback money to retro-engineer for parity or because the money went to an account which one party could not access. Hence, I will not addback Item 49.
Item 50: Husband’s unilateral investment of funds in ‘BH Retail’
The husband deposed that in 2016 Mr AR, who owned BH Retail, approached him seeking a loan. The husband agreed (Husband’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraphs 430-431). The husband said he had loaned various sums at various times to Mr AR totalling $160,000. The source of the funds was the husband’s credit card.
The wife deposed she was aware of the payments (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 981), and that, “throughout 2016 [Mr Jacobsen] told me words to the effect ‘I am collecting around $2,000 a week from [BH Retail] from a loan I made’” (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 717(b)).
The wife now seeks to addback, or “don’t forget me” $195,000 which the wife asserts the husband invested in BH Retail between 22 September 2016 and 19 December 2017. Much of this is prior to the wife’s final separation date at the end of August 2017. The figure in the wife’s affidavit at paragraphs 712(9) and 984 is $160,000. In submissions it was said a further $35,000 had been “found on the other documents”.
In cross-examination, the wife conceded that she sometimes collected re-payments from Mr AR at BH Retail, in addition to monies collected by the husband (Transcript 17 October 2023, p.525 lines 38–44). Neither the husband nor Mr AR had any records about repayments.
Mr AR gave evidence that the monies advanced to him were not all paid back. He also said BH Retail was closed – his words were “locked out”. It was not suggested by the wife to either the husband or Mr AR that the monies still owing would be paid back after these proceedings concluded.
Senior Counsel for the wife submitted:
[WIFE’S COUNSEL]: …Your Honour will not be able to discern from this evidence, with any real clarity, what amounts were advanced when, except for entries that my client has – and those who act for her, have been able to discern from various entries in the [H Pty Ltd] books which we can see have gone to either [BH Retail] or entities connected with [Mr AR]. And, otherwise, we don’t know when they’ve been repaid, what has been repaid, or anything of that nature.
(Transcript 19 October 2023, p.667 lines 32-36)
Senior Counsel for the husband submitted:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]: …Well, the first difficulty with [BH Retail] is that there is no [BH Retail]. So the notion that the husband has an investment in [BH Retail] stumbles at the first hurdle. There is no [BH Retail], and there is certainly no evidence that it exists, or that it has a value or what this investment might be. We do have evidence that the husband advanced moneys to [Mr AR]. We do have evidence that [Mr AR] didn’t pay it all back. But despite a fairly comprehensive attempt to bring [Mr AR’s] evidence down, in my respectful submission, your Honour would accept what [Mr AR] said.
The husband was generous to him. He did lend funds to him. He did repay some funds. The wife, contrary to her evidence, did eventually agree that she used to collect money from [BH Retail] and it went into the safe. It’s a bit of a mess. We don’t know how much came back, but what’s really important is it was never put to [Mr AR] or, indeed, put to the husband that, “When this case is over, [Mr AR], you’re going to give the husband part of this money.” It was never put to the husband, “You’re going get this money from [Mr AR],” so it’s just a bad debt. It’s just a bad exercise. It’s just a bad decision.
(Transcript 20 October 2023, p.736 lines 19-35)
The wife knew about the advances and deposed that she asked the husband five times in 2016 to stop giving money because “it isn’t above board”. She also participated in collecting some of the re-payments in cash from the café. I accept Mr AR’s evidence that the money was a loan, some of which has been repaid. The wife however makes no discount in her addback for payments, even those she collected. I do not consider loaning someone money and getting some repayments to be wanton, reckless or negligent. At the end of the day, it was a poor decision resulting in an unquantified bad debt, but that does not move it to the category of addback. Consequently, I will not addback Item 50.
The wife did not pursue Item 51.
Item 52 – Funds spent by the Husband – loan repayment in respect of ‘[BK Retail]’
The wife sought $80,000 be added back to the pool, which the husband had loaned to a third party prior to final separation:
972. On 16 June 2017, a few months prior to separation, a transfer of $80,000 was made from our personal [J Bank] account to our joint homeloan account with the descriptor ‘[Mr BJ] Loan’. On the same day, a transfer from the homeloan account was made to another account with the descriptor ‘[Mr BJ] Loan’.
973. I therefore understand that [Mr Jacobsen] transferred the sum of $80,000 to [Mr BJ] on 16 June 2017 and say this amount ought be included in our asset pool.
974. [Mr BJ] is not known to me however I have searched [Mr BJ] on Facebook and observed that a person named [Mr BJ's] Facebook page shows a post made on 27 June 2017 with a picture of a […] shopfront and the words "[BK Retail] #…#…".
(Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraphs 972-974)
The husband gave evidence that the money was lent to Mr BJ, was subsequently repaid to him (post-separation) and he has since used it.
Senior Counsel for the wife submitted that the monies were taken from joint personal funds and on the concession by the husband it was repaid after the parties separated:
[WIFE’S COUNSEL]: …the husband has had the benefit of it. And he conceded it didn’t make its way into a bank account. So, in my respectful submission, it’s a classic addback. It was taken from the joint account; it should have been put back there, or it should have been shared with my client in some way.
(Transcript 19 October 2023, p.670 lines 37-41)
Senior Counsel for the husband submitted:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]: …It’s not a classic addback at all. It’s moneys that the husband has received post-separation and expended. It wasn’t put to him that he has still got it. And in the scheme of this case, your Honour would be satisfied that the husband’s expenditure of those funds is hardly surprising. It’s part of what he spent.
And expenditure post-separation does not constitute an addback. The wife might say, “Well, I made a contribution to that because the money that was lent to [Mr BJ] [sic] was joint funds, and the husband got it all back and then spent it post separation.” We would accept that. It’s a tiny, tiny piece of Ms Gillies’ mosaic, if I can put it that way, when your Honour is asked to consider all of the different contributions. That one would – that constituted this mosaic, that would be one of these really, really small pieces, but it’s not an addback. …
(Transcript 20 October 2023, p.737 lines 30-42)
I do not understand the mere fact of loaning matrimonial money to a third party pre-separation then receiving it back post-separation equates to an addback. That is too simplistic (AJO & GRO). Take by analogy the Company M shares bought by the parties during their relationship, and the wife then, post-separation, diverted the entirety of some dividends to herself. No one suggested those dividends (or half of them) be added back to the pool.
Parties do not need to go into suspended economic animation on separation (M & M at [2.11]). I do not consider the loan, repayment and expenditure by the husband to be wanton, reckless or negligent. I consider it just part of the exigencies of life where separation fell in between the loan being made and repayment occurring. I accept the husband spent the money, just as the wife spent the dividends on some of the Company M shares. In the scheme of things, the $80,000 is about 0.3 per cent of the pool. Accordingly, I will not addback Item 52.
Item 53 – Watches and jewellery purchased since separation
The wife seeks an addback of $60,457 said to be spent by the husband on jewellery and watches since separation. Exhibit 17 is a list of these items bought between 12 August 2019 and 14 February 2023. One item at $940 in 2021 was a gift for the parties’ daughter and was removed from the schedule.
The $60,457 is the total purchase price of the items, which does not follow that is its value now.
Senior Counsel for the wife submitted:
[WIFE’S COUNSEL]:…your Honour may not strictly treat this as an addback, but your Honour needs to know about it as well when assessing the disparity in lifestyle and income of the parties post-separation.
(Transcript 19 October 2023, p.671 lines 1–3)
Senior Counsel for the husband submitted that:
[HUSBAND’S COUNSEL]:…there is no principal basis upon which it could be contended that the sum of $60,457 could be added back because the husband spent some money on jewellery for his family since separation.
For a start, there’s no evidence of what the jewellery is worth. The highest it’s put is what the jewellery cost and they’re vastly different things…
(Transcript 20 October 2023, p.737 lines 42–47)
It ought not be forgotten that the pool in this matter is almost $27 million “plus NK” on the wife’s case, or just on $24 million on the husband’s. It is also the case that when together, the wife deposed, “[Mr Jacobsen] and I usually purchased gifts for all of our family members and close friends to celebrate birthdays and Christmas. I estimate that we spent around $7,000‑$8,000 on gifts per annum” (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 871).
In those premises, I do not consider $60,457 spent over four years to be wanton, reckless or negligent, nor a premature distribution of funds. Parties are entitled to live post-separation. I also accept Ms Gillies’ appropriate acknowledgement that this matter goes more to her client’s view about a post-separation income and lifestyle disparity. Accordingly, I will not addback Item 53.
Item 54 was not advanced. Items 54A and 54B were agreed.
Item 54C - Interest paid by H Pty Ltd to ATO as a result of late filing of Fringe Benefit entitlements
The parties are agreed that H Pty Ltd paid $215,000 in interest to the ATO for the filing of late Fringe Benefits entitlements. The FBT issue arose mainly in FYE 2015, as well as 2017, 2018 and just over $10,000 in 2020. In short, personal expenses were paid by H Pty Ltd and Fringe Benefits were not declared at the time.

The husband’s proposal is akin to a concession against interest. I will make the order he proposes, being that he pay $251,000 towards the mortgage. The parties are then to refinance the mortgage secured over Property T into the wife’s sole name. If she wishes, the wife can discharge the balance of the mortgage but that will be a matter for her.
Superannuation
The wife has superannuation with Superannuation Fund 2. It is agreed she will retain that. The husband, the wife and their respective mothers are members of the Jacobsen Family Superannuation Fund, a self-managed superannuation fund established in 2008. The corporate Trustee is AB Pty Ltd. The husband, the wife and their mothers are directors of the corporate trustee. The parties and the wife’s mother are shareholders (Husband’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 358).
The self-managed superannuation fund owns cash and five unencumbered and mainly tenanted properties in Property O.
The wife proposes to roll out her member entitlement of $726,660.
The husband proposes to equalise the party’s superannuation entitlements (including the wife’s Superannuation Fund 2 interest in calculating one half), and his resulting entitlements be rolled out of the self-managed superannuation fund to a new complying fund of his nomination and he transfer his shareholding in the corporate trustee to the wife. He sought to rollover three specific items of real property and some cash, less one half of specified tax and the costs of complying with the superannuation split and roll over. His Minute about rolling himself out of the self-managed superannuation fund is at odds with deposing, “I seek to retain the self-managed superfund” (Husband’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 635).
The husband’s approach has the potential to affect the rights and interests of the third parties who also have member entitlements within the fund and may well have a view on which properties or cash component ought form the husband’s entitlement.
The Trustee has received procedural fairness with respect to the orders sought by the wife. The Trustee did not object to the earlier superannuation orders sought by the husband, but had not been served with his “more nuanced” superannuation orders set out in Exhibit 44 until the evening of the penultimate day of trial (Transcript 20 October 2023, p.744 line 1).
I consider the wife’s approach is a cleaner way of resolving the parties’ superannuation entitlements and does not encroach upon the other members, who may have a view on the properties the husband proposed to roll out of the self-managed superannuation fund. I am conscious of s 79(10)(b) in this regard. I am also not satisfied that service on the Trustee of the husband’s earlier superannuation orders is the same as satisfying that provision. It is not lost on me that the husband will remain a member of the fund with the wife’s mother and his. But equally, his proposal would see the wife remaining in the fund with his mother. On both parties’ proposals, that is not something I can resolve and accept the members have their own rights with respect to their entitlements.
The sculpture
I have already made orders about the husband’s chattels at the former matrimonial home. I now deal with the one item in dispute, which is a sculpture.
The husband deposed:
474. I did not receive any monetary inheritances or monetary gifts during cohabitation however, I did receive several family heirlooms, with the main one being a [sculpture]. In or around 2007, my paternal grandparents passed away and my mother and father said to me words to the effect of, “we are going to invest $20,000 into something of your choice with money left from your grandfather. You have to pick what you want to invest the money into. It has to be meaningful and be something that can stay with you for life”. After much consideration, I decided to commission my brother in law’s parents (being my sister’s husband’s parents) to design and create [a work of art] for the sum of $6,820. This [sculpture] has been in the hallway of the former matrimonial home since December 2007 and I seek to retain it on a final basis.
(Husband’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 474)
The wife deposed, “I wish to retain the [sculpture] that is located at [Property T]” (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 1015). The wife conceded the sculpture was not a fixture and had been moved from an earlier house to the current home.
The husband will retain the sculpture given its sentimental value to him. However, I will order that the husband meet the costs of its removal and any repairs caused by its removal. No one suggested a timeframe, but I consider 28 days is reasonable, subject to appropriate removalists being available.
ATO debt
The wife has an agreed debt to the ATO of $510,440.33 (Item 69 on the joint balance sheet), which includes principal and interest. The husband now proposes to pay the wife’s arrears at the agreed amount. I prefer the husband’s certain order as opposed to the wife’s orders which require the parties to agree “as to the value of any benefits received by the wife” by way of funds loaned to her from H Pty Ltd. I consider that to be a vehicle for further dispute. I have already given reasons why I will not addback the interest component to the pool. Rather than the real likelihood of the parties disputing the value of any benefit received by the wife, the husband proposes to pay the agreed liability and that will be the end of that. It is a simple and clean approach.
Miscellaneous
Joint accounts: The wife provided a draft order for the husband to retain the parties’ joint accounts. The husband proposed the proceeds be divided equally.
The total sum involved is $177.47.
I suspect the parties each spent more money on having their opposing orders typed, than the sum involved.
The wife says the husband can have them, and so he will. That is more simple than the divide up approach proposed by the husband.
AG Shares: In her Minute (clause 61), the wife proposes the husband retain these shares held as a joint portfolio. She deposed the shares were bought in 2015 for $21,225, adding, “In [late] 2017 a share consolidation was implemented, leaving us with 200 shares that have almost no value” (Wife’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 599).
The husband deposed that he does not want the shares but does not set out an order about their disposition (Husband’s affidavit filed 5 September 2023, paragraph 673). The shares do not appear on the parties’ agreed balance sheet nor the husband’s schedule of effects, which makes sense if they have “almost no value”. The only order I have about the shares is the wife’s, which I will therefore make.
Title deeds: the husband sought an order that the wife deliver up any title deeds in her possession with respect to properties in his name, the superannuation fund (including property to be transferred to Ms AD) and/or H Pty Ltd. I see no harm in this particularly given the wife will exit the self-managed superannuation fund. If she has such deeds to the property the husband will keep, then she can deliver them up. If she does not, then she cannot. I will make this a mutual order though for the same reasons.
Indemnities and releases: both parties sought similar orders, the gist of which I will make.
Caveats: the husband sought orders about the withdrawal of caveats, which each has lodged over various properties of the other. I will make the order sought by the husband; it is prudent to do so. No timing was provided by him, hence if the parties cannot agree (and that may hold up settlement of transfer and sale, which is in no one’s interests) then, I will order the caveats be withdrawn contemporaneous with the transfers of specific properties and money payments. If the husband has a caveat over Property W then that is to be removed forthwith as the wife is at liberty to commence the sale process without delay.
Interpretation / implementation / s 106A: this is an asset pool with many moving parts. I will give the parties liberty to re-list the matter on any issues of interpretation or implementation. Both parties sought s 106A orders, which I will make.
Costs: both parties sought the other pay their costs. That may be a matter for another day. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) provide a mechanism for this.
WHAT PROPERTY ORDER IS APPROPRIATE TO ACHIEVE A JUST AND EQUITABLE OUTCOME?
Overall, the parties’ property pool will be divided 52.5 per cent to the wife and 47.5 per cent to the husband.
In money terms that is $13,247,522.17 to the wife and $11,985,853.39 to the husband. The differential of five per cent equates to $1,261,668.78.
I consider this a just and equitable outcome in the circumstances of this case.
For the reasons I have given, the schedule of effects is as follows:

Description

Husband to retain

Wife to retain

ASSETS

Property T

0

$6,000,000.00

Property B

0

$1,700,000.00

Property G

$3,250,000.00

0

Property EE

$85,000.00

0

Property D

$1,320,000.00

0

Property E

0

$435,000.00

Property U

$600,000.00

0

Property V

0

$2,140,000.00

Property W

0

$1,070,000.00

Business entities

Husband’s interest in H Pty Ltd (H Pty Ltd)

$1,982,000.00

0

Wife's interest in H Pty Ltd (H Pty Ltd)

$1,982,000.00

0

Bank accounts

Westpac account …60

$0.28

0

Westpac account …58

$175.14

0

J Bank account …76

$2.05

0

Westpac …98 (X’s account) share

$3,462.49

0

Westpac …72

$63,963.46

0

Westpac account …98

0

$773.31

Westpac account …42

0

$452.64

Westpac account …87

0

$40,652.45

Motor vehicles and number plates

Motor Vehicle 4

$130,000.00

0

Collector Number Plate 2

$425,000.00

0

Motor Vehicle 2

$200,000.00

0

Motor Vehicle 5 with registration “[…]”

$40,000.00

0

Collector Number Plate 1

$1,375,000.00

0

Shares

2 weeks' timeshare in ‘Time share, Town N’ property at Suburb AF, QLD

$30,000.00

0

Westpac share portfolio containing shares in AJ Company and AK Limited

$33,621.30

0

AM Limited – … shares

0

$1,621.84

AN Limited … shares and AP Company … shares

0

$10,154.30

Home, contents and personal items

Property T Property Contents

0

$25,000.00

Husband’s Residence Contents

$50,000.00

0

Jewellery

0

$5,000.00

Other assets

Monies owed to Husband by Mr AL for the repayment of monies lent to him (inc. interest).

$112,200.00

0

Money in Trust Account

$294,404.68

0

Money in Trust Account

0

$483,955.97

Long service leave owed by H Pty Ltd to the husband per page 5 of report prepared by Ms P

$114,653.00

0

ADDBACKS

Legal fees paid from capital

0

$593,712.55

Partial property - Legal fees paid from proceeds of Property A property

0

$800,768.83

Legal fees paid from capital

$400,000.00

0

Partial property - Legal fees paid from proceeds of Property A property (799,040 - 112,200)

$686,840.00

0

Monies owed to Husband by Wife for 50% of Dr NN's fees of $27,110 paid by H on behalf of W - resolved by way of final Parenting Orders 9.10.23

0

$13,555.00

Monies owed to Husband by Wife for 50% of tax agent paid by H on behalf of W

0

$11,000.00

LIABILITIES

Westpac home loan …78

$251,000.00

$236,346.00

Mortgage over Property G

$1,714,750.00

0

POSSIBLE REALISATION COSTS AND CGT

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property E

0

$51,192.00

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property W

0

$121,972.00

TAX LIABILITIES

Previous financial year tax liability

$47,0000.00

0

Company M Shares (H)

$33,453.70

0

Wife's taxation liability accrued as a result of payment of dividend from H Pty Ltd

$510,440.33

0

Company M Shares (W)

0

$33,453.70

Personal loan from AQ Investments Pty Ltd - for legal fees

0

$400,000.00

Personal loan from Ms AD for legal fees

$200,000.00

0

SUPERANNUATION

Superannuation Fund 2

0

$189,773.00

Jacobsen Family Super Fund

0

$726,660.00

Jacobsen Family Super Fund

$1,406,581.00

0

Sub-Totals for each party of what each retains

$11,828,259.37

$13,405,116.19

Add sub-totals

$25,233,375.56

52.5% of the overall pool is $13,247,522.17

The wife stands possessed of $13,405,116.19 meaning the wife is to pay the husband:

$157,594.02

Description	Husband to retain	Wife to retain
ASSETS
Property T	0	$6,000,000.00
Property B	0	$1,700,000.00
Property G	$3,250,000.00	0
Property EE	$85,000.00	0
Property D	$1,320,000.00	0
Property E	0	$435,000.00
Property U	$600,000.00	0
Property V	0	$2,140,000.00
Property W	0	$1,070,000.00
Business entities
Husband’s interest in H Pty Ltd (H Pty Ltd)	$1,982,000.00	0
Wife's interest in H Pty Ltd (H Pty Ltd)	$1,982,000.00	0
Bank accounts
Westpac account …60	$0.28	0
Westpac account …58	$175.14	0
J Bank account …76	$2.05	0
Westpac …98 (X’s account) share	$3,462.49	0
Westpac …72	$63,963.46	0
Westpac account …98	0	$773.31
Westpac account …42	0	$452.64
Westpac account …87	0	$40,652.45
Motor vehicles and number plates
Motor Vehicle 4	$130,000.00	0
Collector Number Plate 2	$425,000.00	0
Motor Vehicle 2	$200,000.00	0
Motor Vehicle 5 with registration “[…]”	$40,000.00	0
Collector Number Plate 1	$1,375,000.00	0
Shares
2 weeks' timeshare in ‘Time share, Town N’ property at Suburb AF, QLD	$30,000.00	0
Westpac share portfolio containing shares in AJ Company and AK Limited	$33,621.30	0
AM Limited – … shares	0	$1,621.84
AN Limited … shares and AP Company … shares	0	$10,154.30
Home, contents and personal items
Property T Property Contents	0	$25,000.00
Husband’s Residence Contents	$50,000.00	0
Jewellery	0	$5,000.00
Other assets
Monies owed to Husband by Mr AL for the repayment of monies lent to him (inc. interest).	$112,200.00	0
Money in Trust Account	$294,404.68	0
Money in Trust Account	0	$483,955.97
Long service leave owed by H Pty Ltd to the husband per page 5 of report prepared by Ms P	$114,653.00	0
ADDBACKS
Legal fees paid from capital	0	$593,712.55
Partial property - Legal fees paid from proceeds of Property A property	0	$800,768.83
Legal fees paid from capital	$400,000.00	0
Partial property - Legal fees paid from proceeds of Property A property (799,040 - 112,200)	$686,840.00	0
Monies owed to Husband by Wife for 50% of Dr NN's fees of $27,110 paid by H on behalf of W - resolved by way of final Parenting Orders 9.10.23	0	$13,555.00
Monies owed to Husband by Wife for 50% of tax agent paid by H on behalf of W	0	$11,000.00
LIABILITIES
Westpac home loan …78	$251,000.00	$236,346.00
Mortgage over Property G	$1,714,750.00	0
POSSIBLE REALISATION COSTS AND CGT
Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property E	0	$51,192.00
Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property W	0	$121,972.00
TAX LIABILITIES
Previous financial year tax liability	$47,0000.00	0
Company M Shares (H)	$33,453.70	0
Wife's taxation liability accrued as a result of payment of dividend from H Pty Ltd	$510,440.33	0
Company M Shares (W)	0	$33,453.70
Personal loan from AQ Investments Pty Ltd - for legal fees	0	$400,000.00
Personal loan from Ms AD for legal fees	$200,000.00	0
SUPERANNUATION
Superannuation Fund 2	0	$189,773.00
Jacobsen Family Super Fund	0	$726,660.00
Jacobsen Family Super Fund	$1,406,581.00	0
Sub-Totals for each party of what each retains	$11,828,259.37	$13,405,116.19
Add sub-totals	$25,233,375.56
52.5% of the overall pool is $13,247,522.17 The wife stands possessed of $13,405,116.19 meaning the wife is to pay the husband:	$157,594.02

The payment by the wife to the husband is a consequence of the assessments I have made with respect to the pool, contributions and s 75(2) factors and the values of the properties the wife will retain - over $11 million in real properties, allowing for realisation costs and her portion of the mortgage on the Property T home.
The parties could agree to offset the wife’s payment to the husband against, for example, the $251,000 which the husband said he would pay off the wife's mortgage, or the $510,440.33 he will pay the ATO for her taxation liability.
But that will be a matter for them to agree, or not.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and twenty-nine (329) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Brasch.
Associate:
Dated: 23 January 2024
ANNEXURE A
The parties’ balance sheet (Exhibit 46)
(Original shading in some line Items removed and some totals may be wrong given amendments made to Items in submissions as struck out and underlined below)

Ownership

Description

Husband's value

Wife's value

ASSETS

Real estate

1

Joint

Property T

$6,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

2

Joint

Property B

$1,700,000.00

$1,700,000.00

3

Husb

Property G

$3,250,000.00

$3,250,000.00

4

Husb

Property EE

$85,000.00

$85,000.00

5

Husb

Property D

$1,320,000.00

$1,320,000.00

6

Husb

Property E

$435,000.00

$435,000.00

7

Husb

Property U

$600,000.00

$600,000.00

8

Wife

Property V

$2,140,000.00

$2,140,000.00

9

Wife

Property W

$1,070,000.00

$1,070,000.00

TOTAL

$16,600,000.00

$16,600,000.00

Business entities

10

Husb

100% interest in H Pty Ltd (H Pty Ltd)

$1,982,000.00

$1,982,000.00

PLUS NK

11

Wife

Wife's interest in H Pty Ltd (H Pty Ltd)

$1,982,000.00

$1,982,000.00

PLUS NK

12

Wife

WW Company

$-

$-

13

Husb

Husband's interest in AH Pty Ltd as @ 08.06.23

$-

$-

TOTAL

$3,964,000.00

$3,964,000.00

PLUS NK

Bank accounts

14

Joint

Westpac account ….60 @ 12.09.23

$0.28

$0.28

15

Joint

Westpac Cash Investment …58 @ 12.09.23

$175.14

$175.14

16

Joint

J Bank account …76 @ 12.09.23

$2.05

$2.05

17

Husb

Westpac …98 (X's account) share @ 12.09.23

$3,462.49

$3,462.49

18

Husb

Westpac …72 @ 19.09.23

$63,963.46

$63,963.46

19

Wife

Westpac account …98 @ 12.09.23

$773.31

$773.31

20

Wife

Westpac account …42 @ 12.09.23

$452.64

$452.64

21

Wife

Westpac account…87 @ 12.09.23

$40,652.45

$40,652.45

TOTAL

$109,481.82

$109,481.82

Motor Vehicles and Number Plates

22

Husb

Motor Vehicle 4

$130,000.00

$130,000.00

23

Husb

Collector Number Plate 2

$425,000.00

$425,000.00

24

Husb

Motor Vehicle 2

$200,000.00

$200,000.00

25

Husb

Motor Vehicle 5 with registration "[…]"

$40,000.00

$40,000.00

26

Husb

Collector Number Plate 1

$1,375,000.00

$1,375,000.00

26B

Wife

Motor Vehicle 1

$-

$-

TOTAL

$2,170,000.00

$2,170,000.00

Shares

27

Joint

2 weeks' timeshare in ‘time share, Town N’ property at Suburb AF, QLD

$30,000.00

$50,000.00

28

Husb

Westpac share portfolio containing shares in AJ Company and AK Limited @ 19.09.23

$33,621.30

$33,621.30

29

Wife

AM Limited – … shares @ 12.09.23 (@3.88 per share)

$1,621.84

$1,621.84

30

Wife

AN Limited … shares and AP Company … shares @ 12.09.23

$10,154.30

$10,154.30

TOTAL

$75,397.44

$95,397.44

Home, contents and personal items

31

Joint

Property T Property Contents @ 13.09.23

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

32

Husb

Husband’s Residence Contents @ 13.09.23

$50,000.00

$50,000.00

33

Wife

Jewellery

$5,000.00

$5,000.00

34

Husb

Wife's Engagement Ring

$-

TOTAL

$80,000.00

$80,000.00

Other assets

35

Husb

Inheritance from Father's Estate

$-

36

Husb

Cash removed from former matrimonial home

$-

$188,900.00

37

Husb

Monies owed to Husband by Mr AL for the repayment of monies lent to him (inc. interest).

$112,200.00

$112,200.00

38

Intentionally left blank

39

Intentionally left blank

40

Husb

Money in Trust Account

$294,404.68

$294,404.68

41

Wife

Money in Trust Account

$483,955.97

$483,955.97

42

Husb

Long service leave owed by H Pty Ltd to the husband per page 5 of report prepared by Ms P

$0

$114,653.00

$114,653.00

TOTAL

$890,560.65

$1,194,113.65

ADDBACKS

43

Wife

Legal fees paid from capital as @ 09.10.23

$593,712.55

$593,712.55

43A

Wife

Partial property - Legal fees paid from proceeds of Property A property

$800,768.83

$800,768.83

44

Husb

Legal fees paid from capital as @ 08.10.23

$400,000.00

$400,000.00

44A

Husb

Partial property - Legal fees paid from proceeds of Property A property (799,040 - 112,200)

$686,840.00

$686,840.00

45

Husb

Money taken from H Pty Ltd by the Husband and charged to Wife's shareholder loan account $354,358

$-

$-

46

Husb

Bonus of $531,080 paid to Husband in 2020 FY - $238,407 paid in tax to ATO, with $292,860 balance used to discharge loan account

$-

$531,080.00

47

Husb

Cash withdrawn from Husband's bank accounts and spent by Husband post separation

$-

$-

48

Husb

Excess superannuation and salary paid by H Pty Ltd to Husband's mother, Ms AD in year 2018 and 2019

$-

$98,500.00

49

Husb

Monies withdrawn from joint account ...60 and paid to H Pty Ltd

$-

$~~244,432.20~~

$221,700.00

50

Husb

Husband's unilateral investment of funds in ‘BH Retail’

$-

$195,000.00

51

Husb

Husband's unilateral use of 11,139,560 BD Limited frequent flyer points and 176,123 BF Pty Ltd frequent flyer points since separation

$-

$-

52

Husb

Funds spent by the Husband – loan repayment in respect of 'BK Retail'

$-

$80,000.00

53

Husb

Watches and jewellery purchased since separation

$-

$60,457.00

54

Wife

Fringe benefits tax on W’s motor vehicle

$-

54A

Wife

Monies owed to Husband by Wife for 50% of Dr NN's fees of $27,110 paid by H on behalf of W - resolved by way of final Parenting Orders 9.10.23

$13,555.00

$13,555.00

54B

Wife

Monies owed to Husband by Wife for 50% of tax agent paid by H on behalf of W

$11,000.00

$11,000.00

54C

Husband

Interest paid by H Pty Ltd to ATO as a result of late filing of Fringe Benefit entitlements

$215,000.00

54D

Husband

Interest charged by ATO on late payment of debt to ATO arising as a result of Husband's unilateral decision to declare dividend in June 2019

$102,045.00

TOTAL

$2,505,876.38

$4,032,390.38

LIABILITIES

Mortgages

55

Joint

Westpac home loan …78 @ 12.09.23

$487,346.00

$487,346.00

56

Husb

Mortgage over Property G @ 12.09.23

$2,129,500.00

$1,714,750.00

TOTAL

$2,616,846.00

$2,202,096.00

Possible realisation costs and CGT

57

Joint

Tax payable on the dividend payable of the retained earnings held within H Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2023 ($2,368,427 - see page 6)

$694,752.00

57A

H Pty Ltd

Realisation cost on sale of Property Z

57B

Joint

Realisation cost on deemed dividend to transfer Motor Vehicle 7 (owned by H Pty Ltd)

58

Husb

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Collector’s number plate No. 1

58A

Husb

Realisation cost and CGT on sale of Collector’s number plate No 2

59

Husb

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property B

60

Husb

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property D

61

Husb

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property E

$51,192.00

$51,192.00

62

Husb

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property U

63

Wife

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property V

64

Wife

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property W

$121,972.00

$121,972.00

64A

Husb

Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property O

$-

TOTAL

$867,916.00

$173,164.00

Tax liabilities

65

Husb

Previous financial year tax liability

~~$52,774.81~~

$47,000.00

~~$41,555~~

$47,000.00

66

Husb

2023 Tax liability

$-

67

Husb

Land Tax liability

$-

68

Husb

Company M Shares

$33,453.70

$33,453.70

69

Wife

Wife's taxation liability accrued as a result of payment of dividend from H Pty Ltd as 30.08.23.

$510,440.33

$510,440.33

70

Wife

Company M Shares

$33,453.70

$33,453.70

71

Wife

2023 Tax Liability

$-

$-

72

Wife

Personal loan from AQ Investments Pty Ltd - for legal fees.

$400,000.00

$400,000.00

73

Husb

Personal loan from Ms AD for legal fees.

$200,000.00

$200,000.00

TOTAL

$1,229,922.54

$1,218,902.73

SUPERANNUATION

Member

Name of Fund

Husband's Value

Wife's Value

74

Wife

Superannuation Fund 2 as at 12.09.23

$189,773.00

$189,773.00

75

Wife

Jacobsen Family Super Fund

$726,660.00

$726,660.00

76

Husb

Jacobsen Family Super Fund

$1,406,581.00

$1,406,581.00

Total

$2,323,014.00

$2,323,014.00

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Ownership

Description

Husband's Value

Wife's Value

77

Husb

BD Limited Rewards – … as at 19.09.23

$-

$-

78

Husb

BF Pty Ltd points – … as at 19.09.23

$-

$-

79

Wife

BD Limited Rewards - … points as at 12.09.23

$-

$-

80

Wife

BF Pty Ltd Rewards … points as at 12.09.23

$-

$-

81

Husb

Long service leave owed by H Pty Ltd

~~$114,653~~

$0

Total

$114,653.00

$-

Husband's Value

Wife's Value

NET TOTAL ASSETS

$23,889,439.91

$24,212,992.91

PLUS NK

NET TOTAL ADDBACKS

$2,505,876.38

$4,032,390.38

NET TOTAL LIABILITES

$4,714,684.54

$3,594,162.73

NET TOTAL SUPERANNUATION

$2,323,014.00

$2,323,014.00

NET TOTAL POOL

$24,003,645.75

$26,974,234.56

PLUS NK

File number:	SYC 3701 of 2018
Judgment of:	BRASCH J
Date of judgment:	23 January 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where many disputed items in the Balance Sheet – Where many addbacks sought – Where wife sought a post separation contribution adjustment in her favour – Where contributions found to be equal being $12.6 million to each party – Where wife sought a 10 per cent adjustment for s 75(2) factors and, in addition, most income earning investment properties
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, VIIIAB, ss 75(2), 79, 79(1), 79(2), 79(4) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 44 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Adamson v Adamson (2014) 51 Fam LR 626; [2014] FamCAFC 232 AJO and GRO (2005) FLC 93-218; [2005] FamCA 195 Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337; [1981] HCA 1 Babett & Falconer (2015) FLC 98-067; [2015] FamCAFC 124 Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600; [1993] FamCA 95 Black and Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287; [1992] FamCA 2 Browne & Green (1999) FLC 92-873; [1999] FamCA 1483 C & C [1998] FamCA 143 Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595; [1995] FamCA 10 Dickons & Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244; [2012] FamCAFC 154 Dovgan & Dovgan [2021] FamCA 306 Fielding and Nichol [2014] FCWA 77 G and G (2000) FLC 93-043; [2000] FamCA 1075 Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143; [2003] FamCA 395 Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd and Penrith Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 In the Marriage of Nutting (1977) FLC 90-410 Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898; [2019] FamCAFC 78 Jacobsen & Jacobsen [2023] FedCFamC1F 669 Kowalski and Kowalski (1993) FLC 92-342; [1992] FamCA 54 M & M [1998] FamCA 42 Maine & Maine (2016) 56 Fam LR 500; [2016] FamCAFC 270 Mallet& Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605; [1984] HCA 21 Perrin & Perrin(No 2) [2018] FamCAFC 122 Rosati v Rosati (1998) FLC 92-804; [1998] FamCA 38 Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52 Trevi & Trevi (2018) FLC 93-858; [2018] FamCAFC 173 W v W (1997) FLC 92-723; [1997] FamCA 3 Waters and Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635; [1995] FamCA 101 Weir and Weir (1993) FLC 92-338; [1992] FamCA 69 Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	329
Date of hearing:	9–20 October 2023
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Cummings SC with Mr Butters
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Barkus Doolan Winning
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Gillies SC with Mr Alexander
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Lander & Rogers

SYC3701 of 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR JACOBSEN Applicant
AND:	MS JACOBSEN Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	BRASCH J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 JANUARY 2024

Ownership			Description		Husband's value		Wife's value
ASSETS
Real estate
1	Joint		Property T		$6,000,000.00		$6,000,000.00
2	Joint		Property B		$1,700,000.00		$1,700,000.00
3	Husb		Property G		$3,250,000.00		$3,250,000.00
4	Husb		Property EE		$85,000.00		$85,000.00
5	Husb		Property D		$1,320,000.00		$1,320,000.00
6	Husb		Property E		$435,000.00		$435,000.00
7	Husb		Property U		$600,000.00		$600,000.00
8	Wife		Property V		$2,140,000.00		$2,140,000.00
9	Wife		Property W		$1,070,000.00		$1,070,000.00
TOTAL					$16,600,000.00		$16,600,000.00
Business entities
10	Husb		100% interest in H Pty Ltd (H Pty Ltd)		$1,982,000.00		$1,982,000.00 PLUS NK
11	Wife		Wife's interest in H Pty Ltd (H Pty Ltd)		$1,982,000.00		$1,982,000.00 PLUS NK
12	Wife		WW Company		$-		$-
13	Husb		Husband's interest in AH Pty Ltd as @ 08.06.23		$-		$-
TOTAL					$3,964,000.00		$3,964,000.00 PLUS NK
Bank accounts
14	Joint		Westpac account ….60 @ 12.09.23		$0.28		$0.28
15	Joint		Westpac Cash Investment …58 @ 12.09.23		$175.14		$175.14
16	Joint		J Bank account …76 @ 12.09.23		$2.05		$2.05
17	Husb		Westpac …98 (X's account) share @ 12.09.23		$3,462.49		$3,462.49
18	Husb		Westpac …72 @ 19.09.23		$63,963.46		$63,963.46
19	Wife		Westpac account …98 @ 12.09.23		$773.31		$773.31
20	Wife		Westpac account …42 @ 12.09.23		$452.64		$452.64
21	Wife		Westpac account…87 @ 12.09.23		$40,652.45		$40,652.45
TOTAL					$109,481.82		$109,481.82
Motor Vehicles and Number Plates
22	Husb		Motor Vehicle 4		$130,000.00		$130,000.00
23	Husb		Collector Number Plate 2		$425,000.00		$425,000.00
24	Husb		Motor Vehicle 2		$200,000.00		$200,000.00
25	Husb		Motor Vehicle 5 with registration "[…]"		$40,000.00		$40,000.00
26	Husb		Collector Number Plate 1		$1,375,000.00		$1,375,000.00
26B	Wife		Motor Vehicle 1		$-		$-
TOTAL					$2,170,000.00		$2,170,000.00
Shares
27	Joint		2 weeks' timeshare in ‘time share, Town N’ property at Suburb AF, QLD		$30,000.00		$50,000.00
28	Husb		Westpac share portfolio containing shares in AJ Company and AK Limited @ 19.09.23		$33,621.30		$33,621.30
29	Wife		AM Limited – … shares @ 12.09.23 (@3.88 per share)		$1,621.84		$1,621.84
30	Wife		AN Limited … shares and AP Company … shares @ 12.09.23		$10,154.30		$10,154.30
TOTAL					$75,397.44		$95,397.44
Home, contents and personal items
31	Joint		Property T Property Contents @ 13.09.23		$25,000.00		$25,000.00
32	Husb		Husband’s Residence Contents @ 13.09.23		$50,000.00		$50,000.00
33	Wife		Jewellery		$5,000.00		$5,000.00
34	Husb		Wife's Engagement Ring		$-
TOTAL					$80,000.00		$80,000.00
Other assets
35	Husb		Inheritance from Father's Estate		$-
36	Husb		Cash removed from former matrimonial home		$-		$188,900.00
37	Husb		Monies owed to Husband by Mr AL for the repayment of monies lent to him (inc. interest).		$112,200.00		$112,200.00
38	Intentionally left blank
39	Intentionally left blank
40	Husb		Money in Trust Account		$294,404.68		$294,404.68
41	Wife		Money in Trust Account		$483,955.97		$483,955.97
42	Husb		Long service leave owed by H Pty Ltd to the husband per page 5 of report prepared by Ms P		$0 $114,653.00		$114,653.00
TOTAL					$890,560.65		$1,194,113.65
ADDBACKS
43	Wife		Legal fees paid from capital as @ 09.10.23		$593,712.55		$593,712.55
43A	Wife		Partial property - Legal fees paid from proceeds of Property A property		$800,768.83		$800,768.83
44	Husb		Legal fees paid from capital as @ 08.10.23		$400,000.00		$400,000.00
44A	Husb		Partial property - Legal fees paid from proceeds of Property A property (799,040 - 112,200)		$686,840.00		$686,840.00
45	Husb		Money taken from H Pty Ltd by the Husband and charged to Wife's shareholder loan account $354,358		$-		$-
46	Husb		Bonus of $531,080 paid to Husband in 2020 FY - $238,407 paid in tax to ATO, with $292,860 balance used to discharge loan account		$-		$531,080.00
47	Husb		Cash withdrawn from Husband's bank accounts and spent by Husband post separation		$-		$-
48	Husb		Excess superannuation and salary paid by H Pty Ltd to Husband's mother, Ms AD in year 2018 and 2019		$-		$98,500.00
49	Husb		Monies withdrawn from joint account ...60 and paid to H Pty Ltd		$-		$~~244,432.20~~ $221,700.00
50	Husb		Husband's unilateral investment of funds in ‘BH Retail’		$-		$195,000.00
51	Husb		Husband's unilateral use of 11,139,560 BD Limited frequent flyer points and 176,123 BF Pty Ltd frequent flyer points since separation		$-		$-
52	Husb		Funds spent by the Husband – loan repayment in respect of 'BK Retail'		$-		$80,000.00
53	Husb		Watches and jewellery purchased since separation		$-		$60,457.00
54	Wife		Fringe benefits tax on W’s motor vehicle		$-
54A	Wife		Monies owed to Husband by Wife for 50% of Dr NN's fees of $27,110 paid by H on behalf of W - resolved by way of final Parenting Orders 9.10.23		$13,555.00		$13,555.00
54B	Wife		Monies owed to Husband by Wife for 50% of tax agent paid by H on behalf of W		$11,000.00		$11,000.00
54C	Husband		Interest paid by H Pty Ltd to ATO as a result of late filing of Fringe Benefit entitlements		$215,000.00
54D	Husband		Interest charged by ATO on late payment of debt to ATO arising as a result of Husband's unilateral decision to declare dividend in June 2019		$102,045.00
TOTAL						$2,505,876.38		$4,032,390.38
LIABILITIES
Mortgages
55		Joint		Westpac home loan …78 @ 12.09.23		$487,346.00		$487,346.00
56		Husb		Mortgage over Property G @ 12.09.23		$2,129,500.00		$1,714,750.00
TOTAL						$2,616,846.00		$2,202,096.00
Possible realisation costs and CGT
57		Joint		Tax payable on the dividend payable of the retained earnings held within H Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2023 ($2,368,427 - see page 6)		$694,752.00
57A		H Pty Ltd		Realisation cost on sale of Property Z
57B		Joint		Realisation cost on deemed dividend to transfer Motor Vehicle 7 (owned by H Pty Ltd)
58		Husb		Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Collector’s number plate No. 1
58A		Husb		Realisation cost and CGT on sale of Collector’s number plate No 2
59		Husb		Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property B
60		Husb		Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property D
61		Husb		Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property E		$51,192.00		$51,192.00
62		Husb		Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property U
63		Wife		Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property V
64		Wife		Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property W		$121,972.00		$121,972.00
64A		Husb		Realisation costs and CGT on sale of Property O		$-
TOTAL						$867,916.00		$173,164.00
Tax liabilities
65		Husb		Previous financial year tax liability		~~$52,774.81~~ $47,000.00		~~$41,555~~ $47,000.00
66		Husb		2023 Tax liability		$-
67		Husb		Land Tax liability		$-
68		Husb		Company M Shares		$33,453.70		$33,453.70
69		Wife		Wife's taxation liability accrued as a result of payment of dividend from H Pty Ltd as 30.08.23.		$510,440.33		$510,440.33
70		Wife		Company M Shares		$33,453.70		$33,453.70
71		Wife		2023 Tax Liability		$-		$-
72		Wife		Personal loan from AQ Investments Pty Ltd - for legal fees.		$400,000.00		$400,000.00
73		Husb		Personal loan from Ms AD for legal fees.		$200,000.00		$200,000.00
TOTAL						$1,229,922.54		$1,218,902.73
SUPERANNUATION
Member				Name of Fund		Husband's Value		Wife's Value
74		Wife		Superannuation Fund 2 as at 12.09.23		$189,773.00		$189,773.00
75		Wife		Jacobsen Family Super Fund		$726,660.00		$726,660.00
76		Husb		Jacobsen Family Super Fund		$1,406,581.00		$1,406,581.00
Total						$2,323,014.00		$2,323,014.00
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Ownership			Description		Husband's Value		Wife's Value
77	Husb		BD Limited Rewards – … as at 19.09.23		$-		$-
78	Husb		BF Pty Ltd points – … as at 19.09.23		$-		$-
79	Wife		BD Limited Rewards - … points as at 12.09.23		$-		$-
80	Wife		BF Pty Ltd Rewards … points as at 12.09.23		$-		$-
81	Husb		Long service leave owed by H Pty Ltd		~~$114,653~~ $0
Total					$114,653.00		$-
Husband's Value		Wife's Value
NET TOTAL ASSETS					$23,889,439.91		$24,212,992.91 PLUS NK
NET TOTAL ADDBACKS					$2,505,876.38		$4,032,390.38
NET TOTAL LIABILITES					$4,714,684.54		$3,594,162.73
NET TOTAL SUPERANNUATION					$2,323,014.00		$2,323,014.00
NET TOTAL POOL					$24,003,645.75		$26,974,234.56 PLUS NK