LIVINGSTON & LIVINGSTON

In the matter of *Livingston & Livingston*, Judge Harland of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between a husband and wife. The parenting dispute involved a child aged 13 who was not currently seeing the father, with both parents making accusations of personality disorders against each other. The father sought an order for family therapy. The property dispute was characterised by accusations of non-disclosure, a disagreement regarding the existence and location of gold sovereigns and bullion, and considerations of initial contributions and income disparity.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements for the child, taking into account the child's age and expressed wishes, as well as the allegations made by each parent. In relation to the property, the court needed to resolve disputes concerning the division of assets, including real estate, vehicles, investments, superannuation, and the contentious gold items, while also addressing issues of non-disclosure and the impact of initial contributions and income disparities.

The court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the wife and spend time with the husband according to the child's wishes. For the property division, the court declared the wife to be the sole owner of certain assets, including Property S, a Toyota Rav4, her shares, AMP investment, superannuation, gold sovereigns and coins, and personal chattels. The husband was declared the sole owner of Property C, Property M, a Holden Rodeo, a Bolwell Shark Scooter, a Hyundai Getz, his shares, superannuation, and personal chattels. Further orders directed the transfer of Property C to the husband and the sale of the [B] property, with the proceeds to be disbursed in a specified priority order, including the payment of sale costs and various taxes. The balance of the sale proceeds was to be divided with the wife receiving 30% and the husband 70%. The husband was also ordered to indemnify the wife for taxation liabilities related to specific properties. Finally, the court included a provision under s.106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* authorising the Registrar to execute documents if a party failed to do so.