Martin & Crawley

In this matter before the Family Court of Australia, Ms Martin (the wife) sought property settlement orders against Mr Crawley (the husband). The parties, both aged 45, married in November 1995 and separated on 21 July 2008, having been divorced in September 2011. They have two children, born in 2000 and 2004. The core of the dispute concerned the division of matrimonial property, with both parties seeking an alteration of their interests, but disagreeing on the quantum of the husband's payment to acquire the wife's interest or compensate her for the loss of future matrimonial property.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included the just and equitable alteration of the parties' interests in their property, the impact of the husband's initial contribution of the "W" property on the parties' entitlements, and whether any adjustment in favour of the wife was appropriate due to the husband's conduct during the post-separation period. The court also considered the application of the principles established in *Stanford v Stanford* regarding the assessment of contributions.

The court found that it would be just and equitable to alter the parties' interests in their property, and that failing to do so to the extent sought by the husband would be unjust. Regarding contributions, the husband's initial equity in the "W" property was deemed a substantial contribution, but not one that continued to generate benefits. The court determined that, based on this initial contribution and other factors, the husband's overall entitlements to the date of separation favoured him by 25 per cent over the wife. In relation to the post-separation period, the court found no evidence that the husband had dissipated funds or neglected his financial obligations. However, acknowledging the husband's greater earning capacity and tangible indirect benefits from a Trust, the court considered a 3 per cent adjustment in the wife's favour to be reasonable.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife a total of $925,803, with specific payment schedules and interest provisions. The wife was to assign her interest in the AA Investment Trust and transfer her interest in the "R" property to the husband upon receipt of a portion of the payment. The wife was also to indemnify the husband in relation to certain existing liabilities, and upon compliance with the orders, transfer her entitlements in various entities to the husband, who would indemnify her in relation to those entities. The court also stipulated that any liability incidental to the implementation of the orders would be borne by the husband at 57.5 per cent and the wife at 42.5 per cent, with costs reserved.