LABELLA & LABELLA

This matter concerned property adjustment proceedings between the Applicant Wife and the Respondent Husband. The proceedings were heard undefended by Judge Morley, as the Respondent Husband had ceased to engage with the litigation despite proof of service. The court was satisfied that the Husband had made a deliberate choice not to appear.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the Husband had made a greater financial contribution to the marriage, the impact of the Wife having the predominant care of the children, the absence of child support payments from the Husband, and whether certain asserted addbacks by the Wife constituted wastage of property by the Husband. The court was required to consider whether it was just and equitable to make property adjustments in favour of the Wife.

The court reasoned that a property adjustment in favour of the Wife was just and equitable. The Husband was found to have made a greater financial contribution, while the Wife had the predominant care of the children and the Husband paid no child support. The court ordered the sale of several properties, with the proceeds to be distributed according to a detailed scheme that accounted for sale costs, legal fees, and tax liabilities. The Wife was appointed Trustee for Sale of the properties.

The final orders provided for the sale of specified properties, with the net proceeds to be applied first to sale costs and mortgage repayments. Remaining funds were to be held for capital gains tax payable by the Husband, with the balance split equally. Further provisions detailed the distribution of funds to address the Husband's tax liabilities and to achieve a final distribution of 63% of the net matrimonial assets to the Wife and 37% to the Husband, excluding superannuation entitlements. The Wife was also allocated a portion of the Husband's superannuation. The Husband was ordered to indemnify the Wife for certain school fees.