Kruger & Kruger (No. 3)

This matter concerned supplementary reasons for judgment in family law proceedings between Kruger & Kruger (No. 3), heard by Coleman J. The dispute revolved around the division of certain assets and liabilities, specifically the treatment and allocation of particular entities and the associated tax implications.

The court was required to determine whether it retained the power to alter its previous intention regarding the wife's retention of a specific entity, given her assertion that the liabilities attached to it rendered it unsustainable as part of the overall property division. Furthermore, the court considered whether it could revisit the allocation of entities based on new arguments presented by the wife, absent an application to re-open evidence, and how to account for Capital Gains Tax (CGT) arising from the liquidation of investment properties. The court also had to decide on the treatment of loan accounts within the entities.

Coleman J reasoned that the court's power to make orders under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) had not been exhausted or spent with respect to the entity in question, and that the wife's contention regarding its unsustainability failed to recognise it as part of a larger pool of assets. The court declined to revisit its earlier conclusion on the entities, citing established legal principles that parties are bound by the conduct of their case at trial, and that new arguments, particularly those requiring further evidence, cannot generally be raised after judgment unless exceptional circumstances exist, drawing on High Court authorities such as *Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd* and *Metwally (No 2)*. The court acknowledged that CGT on the realisation of investment properties would be taken into account "across the board" due to disparate debt levels and the need for liquidation.

Consequently, the court reserved further judgment to allow for additional submissions regarding the approach to CGT.