MAHOUB & MAHOUB

This matter concerned property settlement proceedings between a husband and wife, heard by Foster J in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved the division of various properties and assets, including consideration of prospective capital gains tax liabilities arising from the sale of certain real estate. The court was required to determine the contributions of each party and the appropriate adjustments under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the reflection of the husband's paid legal costs within such an adjustment.

The court's reasoning addressed the division of multiple properties, including the C Town property, Property D, and the F Street property. For these properties, the court ordered their sale by private treaty, with specific provisions for the appointment of real estate agents and the determination of sale prices in the event of party disagreement. The proceeds of sale were to be disbursed according to a detailed priority, including payment of sale expenses, discharge of mortgages, and the allocation of the net balance between the parties. Crucially, the court made specific provisions for anticipated capital gains tax liabilities, ordering sums to be held in controlled monies accounts to meet these future tax obligations, with mechanisms for their disbursement and the division of any shortfall. The court also declared the sole entitlement of each party to certain other properties, with provisions for indemnification regarding associated liabilities.

The final orders dictated the sale of the C Town property, Property D, and the F Street property, with specific percentages of the net proceeds allocated to the wife (55%) and the husband (45%), adjusted by specific monetary amounts in the case of the C Town property. Provisions were made for the management and disbursement of funds to cover capital gains tax liabilities arising from the sale of Property D and the F Street property, including the establishment of controlled monies accounts and the allocation of any shortfall. The wife was declared solely entitled to certain overseas properties and a 'summerhouse' held on trust for the child, while the husband was declared solely entitled to the M Street property. The orders also provided for the transfer of various bank accounts and interests in properties, with the wife assuming responsibility for refinancing mortgages and indemnifying the husband from liabilities associated with certain properties. Each party was to retain their respective personal property, shares, and financial accounts not specifically dealt with in the orders. Leave was granted to re-list the matter for implementation or enforcement issues.