Kruger & Kruger

In Kruger & Kruger, Coleman J of the Family Court of Australia was required to determine the property settlement between the parties. The dispute concerned the division of the parties' combined assets, which had a net value of $8,927,984. The wife sought a greater share of the assets, while the husband contended for a more equal distribution.

The primary legal issues before the court were how to ascertain the parties' entitlements to their property and superannuation interests, the assessment of their respective contributions, and whether any adjustments were warranted under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider the wife's claims for adjustments based on her alleged responsibility to support an adult son and the husband's cohabitation with a new partner, as well as the impact of retaining income-producing residential facilities on the parties' future earning capacities.

Coleman J applied a global approach to ascertaining entitlements, consistent with the principles in *Norbis v Norbis*. The court assessed the parties' contributions, both financial and non-financial, as being equal in the post-separation period, and neither category was given inherent preference, following *Mallet v Mallet*. Superannuation interests were included in the asset pool as per *Coghlan v Coghlan*. No adjustment was made in favour of the wife for the adult son's support, as an application for adult child maintenance could be made separately. Similarly, no adjustment was made regarding the husband's cohabitation due to a lack of evidence about the new partner's finances. The court acknowledged that an adjustment would be necessary to recognise the income-producing nature of the residential facilities and their impact on future earning capacities, concluding that each party should receive one of the two facilities. Capital gains tax liabilities were disregarded as both parties were to retain similar investment property portfolios and had not indicated an intention to sell the residential facilities, aligning with the approach in *Brett Hall v Brett Hall*.

The court ordered that the parties hold their property and superannuation interests as tenants in common in shares of 52 percent to the wife and 48 percent to the husband. The final orders would vest title to one residential facility in the husband and enable the wife to retain the other. Liberty to apply was granted for further orders implementing these decisions, and costs were reserved.