Kartal and Dutsanee & Ors

In this matter before Loughnan J, the parties were a husband and wife who had been married for almost 17 years. The dispute concerned the division of their property following the breakdown of their marriage. The wife had made greater initial financial contributions, and throughout the marriage, both parties contributed financially, with the wife also making greater contributions as a parent and homemaker. The wife possessed a greater earning capacity and had the care of a child under 18 years.

The court was required to determine the appropriate property settlement orders, considering the parties' respective contributions and future circumstances. A key issue was whether to discharge a previously made dollar-for-dollar order, with the wife arguing that the final hearing had concluded and the order's objective had been met. The court also had to consider the provisions of section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in relation to this application.

Loughnan J reasoned that section 79 of the *Family Law Act* permits the court to alter property interests where it is just and equitable to do so. After a marriage of significant duration, the breakdown of the relationship and the parties living apart satisfied the preliminary just and equitable requirement. The court noted the legislative aim in section 81 to finally determine financial relationships and avoid further proceedings. In assessing contributions under section 79(4), the court found that contributions were assessed at 70 per cent in favour of the wife and 30 per cent in favour of the husband. Despite this, an adjustment of 10 per cent was made in favour of the husband. Regarding the wife's application to discharge the previous order, the court was not satisfied that it would be just to vacate or interfere with the existing order, particularly as the financial circumstances had not been fully resolved on the final day of the hearing.

The court ordered that the wife pay the husband a sum of $271,267.50 within 28 days. In the event of default, the Suburb A property was to be sold by public auction, with proceeds distributed after sale costs, mortgage discharge, and then 36 per cent to the husband and the remainder to the wife. The parties were to retain undivided interests in the Suburb W property, and the wife was declared to have sole title to furniture and contents in the Suburb A property. Each party was otherwise entitled to retain sole ownership of property in their possession and any superannuation entitlements. The husband was solely responsible for liabilities related to his interest in the Suburb W property, and the wife was solely responsible for liabilities related to her interest in the Suburb W property. Order 2 of the previous orders made on 25 November 2016 was discharged. The husband's application concerning the second and third respondents was dismissed. Leave was granted to relist for clarification of orders within 21 days.