Kassell & Deighton

In the matter of MLC 9963 of 2019, Ms. Kassell (the Wife) and Mr. Deighton (the Husband) presented their case before Judge Carter. The dispute concerned the division of property following the parties' separation. The Wife sought orders for the division of assets, while the Husband contended that it was not just and equitable for any order to be made.

The court was required to determine the just and equitable distribution of the parties' property pool, considering their financial contributions, non-financial contributions, and future needs. Key issues included the valuation and inclusion of various assets, such as the marital home, superannuation entitlements, shares, and a motor vehicle, as well as the impact of the Husband's severe alcohol use disorder and the Wife's career choices on their respective financial positions and future earning capacities. The court also had to consider the Husband's submission that certain post-separation financial benefits received by the Wife should be notionally added back to the pool, and the Wife's assertion that the Husband's recently sold shares should be similarly treated.

Judge Carter reasoned that a just and equitable division required an assessment of the parties' contributions and their future needs. The court acknowledged the Husband's significant financial contributions, including the pre-cohabitation ownership of the marital property and the funding of substantial renovations. The Wife's contributions, both financial and non-financial, including her involvement in the renovations and her career sacrifices, were also recognised. The court considered the impact of the Husband's alcoholism on his earning capacity and the Wife's reduced income following her resignation from a senior position. The court applied principles of property adjustment under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), balancing the parties' past contributions with their present and future circumstances.

The court ordered that the Husband pay the Wife a sum of $157,261 within 60 days. In the event of non-payment, the marital property was to be placed on the market for sale. The proceeds of sale were to be applied first to sale costs, then to discharge the existing mortgage, followed by outstanding rates and charges. The remaining balance was to be applied towards the payment ordered, with any surplus to be paid to the Husband. Pending payment or sale, the Husband was granted sole occupancy of the property, with responsibility for mortgage instalments and outgoings, and neither party was permitted to encumber the property without the other's consent. Liberty was reserved for either party to apply regarding the sale, and each party was otherwise entitled to property in their possession as at the date of the orders, with joint tenancies severed.