Laska & Garvey

This case involved a dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent, who were previously in a de facto relationship and had six children together. The Applicant sought various orders in relation to property settlement and maintenance, while the Respondent sought to retain certain assets. The Court had to determine what remained of the Applicant's original application after she sought to expand the relief she was asking for. The Applicant argued that she should receive a vehicle that was not more than five years old, given that the Respondent drives newer vehicles, but the Court found that the Respondent's vehicles were only five and twelve years old, and therefore not significantly newer than what the Applicant sought.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Applicant was entitled to the vehicle she sought and whether the Court should make any other orders in relation to the property settlement and maintenance. The Court had to consider the relevant legislation and case law in determining these issues, as well as the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Court also had to consider the financial circumstances of the parties, including the Applicant's contributions to the family and the Respondent's ownership of shares in a company.

After considering the evidence and arguments, the Court found that the Applicant was not entitled to the vehicle she sought, as the Respondent's vehicles were not significantly newer than what the Applicant sought. The Court also found that the Respondent's financial situation had deteriorated due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the Applicant's contributions to the family were significant. Based on these findings, the Court made orders in relation to property settlement and maintenance, including that the Respondent pay the Applicant maintenance and that certain assets be divided between the parties. The Court also made orders in relation to the payment of rent-related sums to the Applicant from the Respondent's company.