Lennon and Lennon No. 2

This matter came before the Family Court of Australia, with Murphy J presiding, concerning property division orders between Ms Lennon (the applicant wife) and Mr Lennon (the respondent husband). The parties had previously obtained orders on 19 July 2011 regarding parental responsibility and the children's living arrangements, but were unable to agree on consolidated minutes of order. The court was therefore required to make further orders to clarify and give effect to the property division.

The primary legal issue before the court was the division of the parties' property in accordance with section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court was also required to determine the specific assets and liabilities to be retained by each party and to make consequential orders to facilitate the property settlement, including the sale of certain real estate. The wife's application for a child support departure order was also before the court.

Murphy J ordered that the property of the parties be distributed 55 per cent to the wife and 45 per cent to the husband. To give effect to this division, the husband was ordered to retain sole ownership of various assets including motor vehicles, household contents, an inflatable boat, items at F Street, and 45 per cent of two businesses, along with a specific sum of money in his bank account. The wife was ordered to retain sole ownership of a European motor vehicle, a Radionics Instrument, broadcasting towers, household contents at BB Street, a specified amount for legal fees, and 55 per cent of the two businesses. The proceeds from the sale of an ice cream van were to be distributed with specific amounts allocated to the wife and the balance divided according to the 55/45 per cent split, with adjustments for certain expenses. The husband was made responsible for specific tax liabilities, while the wife was responsible for school fees, other tax debts, and a loan. Further orders were made for the transfer of interests in real estate at F Street and R Street to the wife, and for these properties to be offered for sale by public auction, with detailed provisions for preparation and sale. The wife's application for a child support departure order was dismissed.