MATTHEWS & NORRIS - [2020] FamCA 547

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MATTHEWS & NORRIS

[2020] FamCA 547

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for adjustment of interests in matrimonial property – Where it is just and equitable to make an adjustment – Where s 79(4) factors favour the husband – Where the husband provided the majority of funds for the parties’ first home – Where the husband, on sale of such property, utilised these funds for the benefit of the parties’ relationship – Where the wife resigned from the parties’ company and left the husband as sole director with a large number of debts to manage and provided no assistance – Where the wife, by choice, was made bankrupt – Where the s 75(2) factors favour the husband – Where the husband is the sole carer of the parties’ child and will receive little to no child support from the wife – Where the wife refused to provide full and frank financial disclosure – Where, as a result, the Court cannot arrive at a fully informed conclusion – Ordered that the husband retain the remaining Australian assets and liabilities with a cash adjustment to him by the wife – Where this division is as just and equitable as possible given the circumstances of the wife failing to meet her disclosure obligations.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks to vary final parenting orders made in 2017 – Where the child lives with the father and spends time with the mother at the father’s discretion – Consideration of Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 principles – Where there is no credible evidence of a change in circumstances or some new factor arising since final orders were made – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79.

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FLC 93-545

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
Matthews & Norris (No. 3) [2018] FamCA 803

APPLICANT:

Mr Matthews

RESPONDENT:

Ms Norris

FILE NUMBER:

NCC

2226

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

9 July 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF:

Cleary J

HEARING DATE:

8 -9; 14-15 August: 1 October: 20 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Carty

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Oliver Campbell Heslop

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Not Applicable

THE RESPONDENT:

Self-Represented

Orders

Property

That within 28 days of these orders the wife shall pay to the husband or as he directs the sum of $589,178.
That within seven (7) days of the date of these orders the wife shall do all such acts and things and sign all necessary documents so as to transfer to the husband her twelve (12) ordinary shares in Matthews Pty Ltd (ACN …).
That the husband is declared the sole legal and beneficial owner of the balance of the net proceeds from the sale of the property situate at O Street, P Town, being the whole of the land in folio identifier … (“the P Town property”) and the balance of the net proceeds of sale of the property situate at E Street, Suburb F, being the whole of the land in folio identifier … (“the Suburb F property”) currently held in the trust account of Oliver Campbell Heslop Solicitors and that such monies be released to the husband forthwith for him to use at his discretion.
That forthwith upon the making of these orders, the husband and the wife in their roles as directors of N Pty Ltd (ACN …) (“the Trustee”) as trustee for the Matthews Superannuation Fund (“the Fund”) do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to cause DD Group Chartered Accountants of Suburb EE NSW, to calculate the value of the Fund, net of any taxation liabilities and accounting fees.
That the husband and the wife in their roles as directors of the Trustee shall do all necessary acts and things, sign all documents and give all consents necessary to give force and effect to Orders 6 to 10 hereof.
Orders 5 and 7 to 10 (inclusive) are binding on the Trustee of the Fund.
The amount allocated to the husband out of the interest of the wife in the fund is a base amount being 100 per cent of the member account of the wife in the fund as determined in accordance with Order 4.
That pursuant to s 90MT(1)(b) of the Act whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the interest of the said wife in the fund the husband shall be entitled to be paid an amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (“the Regulations”) using the base amount and that there be a corresponding reduction in the entitlement of the wife to whom the splittable payment would have become payable but for these orders.
That Order 8 has effect from the operative time.
That the operative time for the purpose of Order 8 is four (4) business days from the date of service of these orders upon the Trustee of the Fund.
That there be liberty to apply to each party and the Trustee in relation to the implementation of the orders affecting the superannuation interest in the fund.
That upon the payment split in Order 8 the wife shall do all acts and things and execute all documents necessary to:
12.1Tender her resignation as a director of the Trustee;
12.2Transfer to the husband her shares in the Trustee; and
12.3Resign as a member of the Fund.
That unless otherwise specified in these orders, and save for the purposes of enforcing any monies due under these or any subsequent orders:
13.1Each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all other property and chattels of whatsoever nature and kind and wheresoever located in the possession of such party at the time of making these orders and that for this purpose bank accounts are deemed to be in the possession of the person whose name appears on the bank’s record hereof, and superannuation and insurance policies are deemed to be in the possession of the owner thereof;
13.2Each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders.
That the husband and the wife do all acts and things and give all consent and execute all documents and writings necessary to give effect to the orders made herein.
That in the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument the registrar of the Court is appointed pursuant to s 106A of the Act to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and to do all such acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.
That the Fourth Amended Application of the husband filed 1 March 2019 is otherwise dismissed.
That the application (Property and Spouse Maintenance) contained in the Further Amended Response of the wife filed 13 March 2019 is dismissed.
That these orders be registered in New Zealand pursuant to s 56 of the Trans-Tasman Proceeding Act 2010 (NZ).

Parenting

The application (Parenting) [Orders 1-15] contained in the Further Amended Response of the wife filed 13 March 2019 is dismissed.

Provision of Orders and Reasons

A copy of these orders and reasons shall be provided by a registrar of this Court to a registrar of the Family Court of New Zealand in City BB.

Costs

Any application for costs is to be filed within 28 days of the date of these orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Matthews & Norris has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC 2226 of 2015

Mr Matthews

Applicant

And

Ms Norris

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These are competing applications for adjustment of interests in matrimonial property. There was also a threshold issue in respect of the wife seeking to revisit parenting arrangements.
I have found that the parties began living together in 2008, marrying the following year. They separated in August 2015 and were divorced in 2018. There is one child of the marriage, a girl aged nine years, who lives with the husband.

Overview of Litigation

The parties have a four plus year history of incessant litigation.
In addition to this application/response for final orders, there have been 17 interim/interlocutory applications, four appeals lodged [three in Australia; one in New Zealand] and applications to a State Court in Australia and a Family Court in New Zealand for personal protective orders.
The applicant in all but three applications has been the wife. Several were dismissed for want of prosecution.
One of the applications made by the husband was in August 2018 for a vexatious proceedings order to be made restraining the wife. That application was heard by me and dismissed. This Court found that the discretion to make the order was enlivened by the conduct of the wife but should not be exercised in favour of an order being made.
The main reason was identified as follows:
A vexatious proceedings order has the capacity to put the wife, especially if she continues to be self-representing, at a severe disadvantage and, further, to delay final hearing to the disadvantage of both parties.[1]
[1] Matthews & Norris (No. 3) [2018] FamCA 803, par [67].
The wife conducted these proceedings with cavalier disregard for financial disclosure and candour.
A clear example is the response by the wife to a detailed written request by the solicitor for the husband for information. The request was made on 9 August 2018.
The response, in its entirety, was this:[2]
Dear Louise,
You are grossly mistaken.
No further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter.
It is noted you are refusing to abide by the family court rules and the rules of a solicitor.
Regards [Ms Norris]
[2] Exhibit 31.
Despite being legally represented in a most competent way, it was the husband who suffered disadvantage as his lawyers contended, at his expense, with the defiant unwillingness of the wife to comply with proper requests and the rules of the Court.
The wife repeatedly referred to her unwillingness to acknowledge, or permit valuation of, any assets acquired prior to the parties’ marriage or after separation.
The wife had assets in New Zealand before the parties met. She has retained those assets and also acquired assets in North America.
In her notes to the parties’ Balance Sheet the wife declared more than once that a particular asset “does not form part of the property” and would then refer to New Zealand legislation - “NZ Property (Relationships Act) 1976”.[3]
[3] Exhibit 3.
Many items identified by the husband as being in the possession of the wife but not in the Balance Sheet were acknowledged by the wife with comments such as:
The Respondent [wife] has not been able to regain control of those shares since going bankrupt.[4]
The Respondent [wife] is concerned again of how the Applicant would know this information and would like to see the evidence of such.[5]
This account was set up for a very short period of time after separation and closed only a few months after being opened due to ...[6]
[4] Exhibit 3, Item 16.
[5] Exhibit 3, Item 17.
[6] Exhibit 3, Item 10.
The wife is a skilled, intelligent, tertiary-educated person. I am confident that she understood the disclosure she was obliged to make and the relevant rules. It became apparent that she had refused to make disclosure of significant assets and refused to provide information which might enable the husband to identify and value them. The wife was obstructive. She treated these proceedings, perhaps from the outset but certainly during this trial, as a game she hoped to win.
The husband did make disclosure and directed his lawyers to take all steps possible by way of subpoena and enquiry to put all relevant information about his finances and those of the wife before the Court.
For those reasons, where the evidence of the parties differs I have been more inclined to accept the evidence of the husband.

The Parties

The Husband

The applicant husband, aged 52, is in full-time employment as a general manager, living and working in Melbourne. He has the full-time care and support of the parties’ daughter. There is no evidence of a new partner for him.

The Wife

The respondent wife, aged 46, is apparently not in the paid workforce. The wife has been qualified as a professional since 2000. Between 2009 and 2011 she studied towards, and ultimately obtained, a Masters degree.
The wife returned to live in New Zealand in February 2017 with her then partner, Mr West. The child of their relationship, Z, was born six months later.
In July 2018 the wife separated from Mr West. There is no evidence of a new partner for her. The wife has remained living in New Zealand since February 2017.

The Applications

Property

The Husband

By his Fourth Amended Initiating Application the husband sought the orders set out below: [7]
[7] Fourth Amended Initiating Application of the husband filed 1/03/2019.
·That a disposition by the wife of $128,000 being the sale proceeds of Business asset 1, be set aside pursuant to s 106B - (1);
·Transfer of shares in Matthews Pty Ltd to husband - (5);
·Husband to receive the proceeds of sale of the Suburb F and P Town properties held in trust - (6);
·Cash payment to husband $733,000 or 75 per cent of the asset pool - (7);
·Super valuation and split to husband - (8-16);
·Each to otherwise keep property in possession - (17);
·Operating orders - (18-19);
·Costs - (20);
·Registration of orders in New Zealand - (21);

The Wife

By her Further Amended Response to Initiating Application[8] the wife sought Orders 16-37 summarised below:
[8] Further Amended Response to Initiating Application of the wife filed 13/03/2019.
·Dismissal of the application of the husband - (16);
·A Stay of the property proceedings in Australia - (17);
·Spouse maintenance orders - (18-21);
·Orders in the event of a Stay not being granted:
-Super split - (22-29);
-Cash payment to wife of $120,000 - (30);
-Cash payment to wife of $1 million [waste] - (31);
-Cash payment to wife of $1.5 million [general damages] - (32);
-Inchoate payment of wife’s medical expenses - (33);
-The child, B, to be made beneficiary of Matthews Pty Ltd Trust - (34);
-Sale of Suburb T VIC property [20 per cent to wife] - (35-36);
-Costs [indemnity] - (37).
In her Case Outline filed 29 July 2019[9] the wife repeated those orders, omitting only the application for a Stay of the Australian proceedings.

Analysis

[9] Exhibit 2.

Husband

The application of the husband is for an adjustment which equates to a division of the matrimonial asset pool in a ratio of 75/25 per cent in his favour.

Wife

The application of the wife contains orders which the Court does not have jurisdiction to make, namely general damages and payment of medical expenses; and the parties’ child becoming a beneficiary of a trust.
One order is for the sale of the property in which the husband’s parents live (“the Suburb T property”) in order for the wife to receive 20 per cent of the proceeds.
The husband’s parents each hold two undivided one-fifth shares of the property. The husband is on title for one, one-fifth share.[10] The husband’s parents are not parties to the proceedings. There is a dispute to be resolved over who has the beneficial interest in the husband’s one-fifth share.
[10] Affidavit of Mr W filed 18/06/2019, Annexure U1.
The making of the other orders sought would deliver all of the matrimonial assets to the wife with the husband to pay further large sums from unidentified sources.

The Evidence

The documents relied on in respect of the application were as follows:
The Applicant Husband - Mr Matthews
(a)Fourth Amended Initiating Application filed 1/03/2019;
(b)Affidavit of the husband filed 18/06/2019;
(c)Financial Statement filed 18/06/2019;
(d)Affidavit of Mr Matthews Snr [husband’s father] filed 18/06/2019;
(e)Affidavit of Ms X Matthews [husband’s aunt] filed 17/06/2019;
(f)Tender Bundle prepared for Applicant husband from documents produced on subpoena;
(g)Written submissions (Parenting);[11]
The Respondent Wife - Ms Norris
(h)Further Amended Response filed 13/03/2019;
(i)Affidavit of the wife filed 14/06/2019;
(j)Financial Statement filed 14/06/2019;
(k)Affidavit of Ms Y filed 14/06/2019;
(l)Written Submissions.[12]
[11] Exhibit 47.
[12] Exhibits 45 and 46.

The Trial

In February 2019, the matter was listed for trial for a period of four days: 8-9; 14-15 August 2019.

Application of wife in New Zealand

On 13 March 2019 the wife commenced proceedings in the Family Court of New Zealand seeking property orders.
The wife made an application to this Court for the Australian proceedings to be stayed so the matter could be heard in New Zealand. The husband opposed the application. That application was refused by this Court.[13]
[13] Orders and ex-tempore reasons dated 14/06/2019.
The wife has advised this Court that the New Zealand proceedings have been suspended by the case managing judge in New Zealand pending the outcome of these proceedings in Australia.

Application by wife to attend by video link

On 14 June 2019 the wife successfully applied to this Court to appear from New Zealand by video link for the trial. There were certain conditions imposed in terms of where the wife would be to give evidence [in a room within a Court in New Zealand] and the cost of provision to her by solicitors for the husband of a Tender Bundle in advance [$2,376].
The wife was informed that a failure to make appropriate arrangements and pay the money would result in her being required to attend in person; and a failure to attend in person in that situation would result in the matter proceeding undefended.
The wife complied with those conditions.
The wife made arrangements with the Family Court of New Zealand at City BB and that Registry was most helpfully willing and able to accommodate the video link on the first two days of the trial. For the second two days of the trial the wife was likewise accommodated by the Registry at City CC.
This Court sat in accordance with New Zealand time [8.00 am to 3.00 pm AEST] to maximise time available in the New Zealand Registries.
The husband was legally represented and had briefed counsel.
The wife was self-represented as she has been since August 2017.
The four days allocated for the trial proved not to be enough.
On each of the two additional days allocated, in October, then in November 2019, the matter could not be brought to conclusion.
Allowance is often made for self-represented litigants to take longer than a represented party. In this case the wife was well prepared, but ran her case with a sense of outrage so profound that she was not responsive as a witness and was combative about any judicial direction which did not suit her.
The wife took the opportunity to email to my Associate, in the days leading up to a trial day, reams of material which did not become evidence.
Submissions were not concluded on 20 November 2019; the sixth day of trial. The wife was given leave to send in the balance of her submissions which she had been reading from in Court. She did so on 6 December 2019.[14]
[14] Exhibit 45.
It was an unruly trial made manageable, in trying circumstances, by the preparation, discipline and professional courtesy of the solicitor and counsel for the husband.

History of Relevant Events

Prior to relationship

On 28 May 1991 the husband’s parents decided to buy a property to live in at U Street, Suburb T in the State of Victoria (“the Suburb T property”). They were short of funds needed and asked the husband to contribute. He did so in the sum of $31,000 and went on to the title for a one-fifth share, as tenants in common, with his parents.
On 14 February 2001 the wife formed the New Zealand corporation, Company W Limited (NZ) (“Company W NZ”).
On 17 May 2005 the wife apparently formed the company Company AA Ltd (“Company AA NZ”).
In July 2005 the husband’s parents paid to the husband the sum of $92,000 for the husband’s one-fifth share in the Suburb T property. From that date, I am satisfied, the husband has held his legal interest on trust for his parents.[15] The husband’s father provided an affidavit and although he was cross-examined his evidence was unchallenged on that issue.
[15] Affidavit of Mr W filed 18/06/2019, pars 12-15; Affidavit of the husband filed 18/06/2019, pars 107-108.
On 27 March 2006 the wife’s company, Company W NZ, purchased a property at 2 GG Street, HH Town, City BB New Zealand, (“the GG Street property”) for $350,000.
On 21 June 2007 the wife’s company, Company AA NZ, purchased the property at JJ Street, City BB in New Zealand for NZ$900,000 (“the JJ Street property”).
In July 2007 the husband separated from his first wife, Ms KK Matthews.
In January 2008 the wife started working in Australia.

Parties meet - 2008

In July 2008 the parties met in the workplace.

Cohabitation

By September 2008 the parties had a common residence.
On 24 September 2008 the wife incorporated the Australian company LL Pty Ltd (ACN …) of which the wife is the sole director and shareholder.
In March 2009 the husband received $422,828 from the property settlement with his former wife.
On 19 March 2009 the parties purchased, in the wife’s sole name, a property at E Street, Suburb F NSW for $842,500 subject to a mortgage of $758,250 (“the Suburb F property”).
On 2 April 2009 the wife applied $435,000 from monies received by her from the husband to reduce the loan secured by mortgage over the Suburb F property.
In June 2009 LL Pty Ltd acquired the truck motor home (“the truck”) for $52,000. The parties spent $94,000 on customising the truck.

Marriage

On … 2009 the parties were married in Country MM.
In August/September 2009 the wife left her employment in contentious circumstances. Litigation over two years led to a settlement of the wife’s claim of $210,000 less solicitor’s costs of $100,000.
On 12 November 2009 LL Pty Ltd acquired Business asset 1, for $5,000.
In 2010 the husband commenced studying a bachelor degree.
On 20 February 2010 the parties registered the Australian company N Pty Ltd (ACN …). This company is the corporate trustee of the Matthews Superannuation Fund. The wife is a director and the husband is a director and secretary and both parties each hold one ordinary share.
In May 2010 the wife commenced employment with Company NN.
In 24 September 2010 the parties purchased, in the husband’s sole name, the property at O Street, P Town NSW for $620,000, subject to a mortgage of around $500,000 (“the P Town property”). An amount of $171,776 was redrawn from the Suburb F property loan.
On … 2010 the party’s only child, B, (“the child”), is born.
In mid-2011 when the child was six months old the wife started working in a part-time role with Company OO two and a half days a week.
At the end of 2011 the husband states that the wife finished working at Company OO after gaining a position with Company PP in Perth WA, with one day a week in QQ Town. The husband states he transferred with RR Pty Ltd to work out of the Perth premises.
The parties moved to live in Perth WA in January 2012.
In 2012 business asset 1 was sold for $150,000. The wife contended that she sold her 85 per cent share in the asset to her parents, as silent partners. She asserted she received $22,000 from the sale proceeds and the remainder went to her parents. There was no evidence from the wife’s parents to that effect.
In March/April 2012 the parties purchased a property through their self-managed superannuation fund at SS Street, Suburb TT WA.
In March 2013 the husband states he left his job with RR Pty Ltd and commenced work with Company UU.
In May 2013 the wife was made redundant at Company PP.
In June 2013 the wife undertook a realtor course online with the intent of building a real estate portfolio.
In 2013 the husband transferred to a university in WA to continue his bachelor degree.
On 6 September 2013 the parties registered the Australian company, Matthews Pty Ltd (ACN …) Both parties were directors and shareholders.
At the end of 2013 the husband was made redundant from Company UU.
On 24 April 2014 Matthews Pty Ltd purchased a commercial office at VV Street, WW Town WA (“the WW Town property”). The property was purchased for $299,500 and was subject to a mortgage with the National Australia Bank for $208,000. The husband states that at the time of separation this was leased to two different tenants; one tenant left and then a government tenant took over and had the rent adjusted, which resulted in a rent reduction; the husband had to re-pay to the tenant rent of $8,954.
In March/May 2014 the wife’s company Company W NZ is alleged to have sold the property at 4 GG Street, HH Town in New Zealand for $558,250.
On 8 May 2014 Matthews Pty Ltd purchased 1 and 2 XX Street, R Town WA (“the R Town property”). These are residential units. They were purchased for $575,000 and are subject to a current mortgage in favour of the National Australia Bank. The property was purchased at the height of the mining boom and are now worth $150,000-$180,000.
On 5 June 2014 the parties’ company Matthews Pty Ltd purchased the business property at ZZ Street, AB Town in Tasmania (“the AB Town property”) for $226,000, subject to a mortgage for $130,000. The property was tenanted.
On 28 July 2014 a company incorporated in the United States of America by the wife, “Company W (USA)”, bought the property at AC Street, State AE USA for US$97,000 (“the State AE property”). The wife states she estimates that the property is worth $US110,000 and has stated that she receives gross rent on the property at US$1,050 per month.
In August 2014 the wife re-entered the paid workforce and commenced employment with Company AF on a three week on, one week off roster.
The husband commenced employment with AG Limited in Suburb AH (15 minutes from Perth). Soon after, he left AG Group Limited and commenced employment with Company AJ in Perth.
In 2015 the husband completed his bachelor degree.
In February 2015 the husband states he was made redundant from Company AJ in Perth. The parties moved back to NSW to live in the P Town property.
Upon moving to Newcastle the husband states he obtained some lucrative contract work in QQ Town W.A and travelled there five times.
In June 2015 the wife returned to employment with Company PP.

Final separation of the parties

In August 2015 the parties separated.
At this time Matthews Pty Ltd held three parcels of real estate (one in Tasmania and two in Western Australia) with a combined value of $668,000 subject to a mortgage of $794,000.
After separation the wife changed the banking passwords. The husband was unable to access accounts. The wife declined to provide any information to him.

Proceedings commence in Federal Circuit Court – 19 August 2015

On 19 August 2015 the husband initiated parenting and property proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court (“FCC”) at Newcastle.

Sale of P Town property

On 6 November 2015 the husband sold for $785,000 the P Town property in which the parties had lived until separation.
On 17 November 2015 the wife filed an Application in a Case seeking that the sale of the P Town property “be frozen”.

Proceedings transferred to the Family Court of Australia – 9 December 2015

On the first return date in the FCC the wife advised the Court that she wished to relocate the residence of the child to New Zealand with her. The proceedings were transferred to this Court.
The wife informed the husband that she had sold Business asset 1 to Company AL for $20,000 plus GST. That proved not to be the case.
On 22 January 2016 an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) was put in place at the Local Court for a period of 12 months. The husband was listed as the defendant and the wife was listed as the person in need of protection.
On 25 January 2016 Company AA Ltd was granted Resource Consent to subdivide the JJ Street property in New Zealand.
On 27 January 2016 orders were made that upon the sale of the P Town property and payment of expenses and discharge of the mortgage, the balance was to be held in trust by the solicitors for the husband in an interest bearing term deposit account.
On 27 January 2016 the mother filed an Amended Application in a Case seeking parenting orders.
On 29 January 2016 interim orders were made in relation to the parenting proceedings.
In February 2016 the wife re-partnered with Mr West. The husband re-partnered with Mr West’s former wife, Ms West.
On 4 February 2016 procedural orders were made by a registrar after a Case Assessment Conference requesting that: the parties disclose certain documents and financial records to each other and, the wife provide the husband with details of managing agents for the Suburb F, New Zealand and USA properties. The following notations were made:
·That the respondent wife informed the Court that the proceeds from the sale of assets held by LL Pty Ltd have been deposited into the bank account for LL Pty Ltd; the respondent wife confirmed that she would ensure that the sale by her of any further assets by LL Pty Ltd would also be deposited into the bank accounts for LL Pty Ltd and that such funds would not be utilised other than to meet the payment of debts or operating expenses for LL Pty Ltd;
·The parties agreed to sell the property at 1 and 2 XX Street, R Town WA, that was owned by Matthews Pty Ltd;
·The parties would cause Matthews Pty Ltd to instruct an accountant to prepare the 2013/2014 financial statements for the entity as soon as reasonably possible;
·The respondent would cause Company W NZ and Company AA NZ to instruct accountants to prepare financial statements for the entities as soon as possible.
On 19 February 2016 the sale of the P Town property settled. The net proceeds from this sale were $256,834 and were received into the husband’s solicitor’s trust account pursuant to orders and then into a term deposit.
On 4 April 2016 procedural orders were made by a registrar adjourning the matter and instructing the parties to file written submissions as to the appointment of a single expert witness to value the Suburb F property, Suburb T property, JJ Street property, State AE property and truck owned by LL Pty Ltd.
On 10 May 2016 further procedural orders were made by a registrar adjourning the matter for a Conciliation Conference:
·Mr AP of AQ Group was appointed as a single expert witness to value the Suburb F property, with the cost to be paid by the wife and then reimbursed by the husband on final settlement;
·Mr BA was appointed as a single expert to value the New Zealand property, with the cost to be paid by the wife and then reimbursed by the husband on final settlement;
·Mr AS was appointed as a single expert to value the truck with the cost to be paid by the wife and then reimbursed by the husband on final settlement.
A notation was made that the parties had been able to agree on the values to be attributed to the other parcels of real property for the purposes of the upcoming Conciliation Conference.

Sale of the Truck

On 11 May 2016 an amount of $9,500 was deposited into LL Pty Ltd’s bank account in BE Town in cash with the description “truck sale”.
On 12 May 2016 the wife emailed the husband’s solicitor advising that the truck was no longer in her possession. The wife advised that she had sold the truck to Ms AT of BF Street, Suburb AU WA for $10,000.This proved not to be the case.

Valuations delayed

On 20 May 2016 the proceedings were re-listed on the request of the husband regarding issues surrounding letters of instructions to the single expert appointed to value the property in New Zealand. The matter was adjourned to 15 June 2016.
In June 2016 the Suburb F property was inspected by the single expert witness, Mr AP, for the purpose of the jointly instructed valuation. The wife asserts there were problems with the sewer and the roof, and as such, the valuation report could not be finalised until a report was received from a structural engineer.
On 15 June 2016 further procedural orders were made by a registrar vacating the Conciliation Conference and adjourning the matter.
The parties were ordered to exchange information as to any further expert evidence required to enable completion of the valuation report for the Suburb F property by 24 June 2016 and by 1 July 2016 the parties were to file written submissions as to the appointment of any single expert witnesses required to enable completion of the valuation report of the Suburb F property.
It was noted that the wife advised the registrar that she had sought legal advice in New Zealand in relation to the valuation of the JJ Street property. Based on that legal advice, the respondent informed the Court that she does not consent to the valuation report being completed by Mr BA, AR Limited, City BB and has not paid the invoice, as required by Order 7 of the orders dated 10 May 2016.
The solicitor for the husband then informed the Court that the husband intends to file an Application in a Case in relation to the asserted non-compliance by the wife with the orders for valuation of the JJ Street property.

Sale of investment properties owned by Matthews Pty Ltd

In July 2016 the AB Town property was abandoned by the tenant. The property fell into a state of disrepair. The husband was not able to access any of the information relating to the Matthews Pty Ltd properties.
On 5 July 2016 the wife did not attend Court. The husband informed the Court that he still intended to file an Application in a Case in relation to asserted non-compliance by the wife with the orders for valuation of the New Zealand and Suburb F properties and asserted failure by the wife to provide financial disclosure.
On 11 July 2016 the husband filed an Application in a Case proposing orders that:
·    Mr BA be appointed to value the JJ Street property and ancillary orders;
·    That the valuation of the report of Mr AP regarding the Suburb F property be issued immediately;
·    the parties as directors of Matthews Pty Ltd accept any offer of or above $350,000 for the property situated at 1 and 2 XX Street, R Town WA and any shortfall in funds to discharge mortgage secured over the R Town property to be paid in the first instance from proceeds of sale of the P Town property (such funds being held in trust by Oliver Campbell Heslop Solicitors) and accounted for when proceedings finalised;
·    The husband was also seeking orders that the wife disclose a raft of documents and financial information.
On 27 July 2016 the father’s Application in a Case was dismissed.
On 9 August 2016 procedural orders were made by Registrar McFadden ordering the parties to attend a Conciliation Conference.

Sale of Business asset 1

On 9 August 2016 by letter from her then solicitors, AW Lawyers, the wife provided tax invoices in favour of Company AL as evidence that Business asset 1 owned by LL Pty Ltd was sold for $20,000 plus GST. This later proved not to be the case.
On 22 August 2016 the husband alleges that a letter from the wife’s then solicitors, AW Lawyers, was sent to his solicitor serving a report prepared by CP Group on the wife’s instructions. Documents in records produced in subpoena by CP Group demonstrate that the report served by the wife is substantially different from the report prepared and issued by CP Group.
In September 2016 the husband who had been receiving Centrelink benefits obtained some employment for AX Pty Ltd on weekends.
On 26 October 2016 further procedural orders were made by Registrar McFadden vacating the Conciliation Conference due to the high level of conflict and serious disagreements regarding the Balance Sheet items.
The matter was then listed before a docket judge.

Enquiry about change of ownership of wife’s Motor vehicle

On 20 October 2016 the husband by letter from his solicitor to the wife’s solicitor, requested the name of the registered proprietor of Motor vehicle 1 registration number ….
On 25 October 2016 the parties filed a joint Balance Sheet. On this Balance Sheet the wife stated that Business asset 1 was sold for $20,000 plus GST.

Wife resigns as director of Matthews Pty Ltd

On 12 November 2016 the wife resigned as a director of the parties’ company leaving the husband as sole director.

Judicial Directions re. valuations

On 24 November 2016 orders were made by a judge of this Court in relation to valuations to be undertaken of the Suburb T property, the wife’s shareholding in Company AA and Company W. The parties were also ordered to prepare and file an updating Balance Sheet.
The husband alleges that that the wife, in open Court before Justice Austin in November 2016, denied any knowledge of the Motor vehicle 1. Records subsequently revealed that the Motor vehicle 1 was registered to the wife’s partner, Mr West, between May 2016 and 24 November 2016 and that the registration was cancelled by Mr West on 24 November 2016.
On 24 November 2016 the wife filed an Amended Response seeking further orders for property and parenting.
On 9 December 2016 procedural orders were made by me dismissing various Applications in a Case filed by both parties in relation to the parenting proceedings.
On 22 December 2016 interim orders were made by another judge of this Court, Justice Austin, in relation to the parenting proceedings.

Wife ceases paid employment - January 2017

In January 2017 the wife ceased working for Company PP and has apparently not been in the paid workforce since.

Appeals by wife

On 4 January 2017 the wife filed two separate appeals in relation to the orders dated 9 December 2016 and 22 December 2016.
In January 2017 the wife alleged that the husband was stealing from her. The police interviewed the husband. No charges were laid.
On 11 January 2017 the husband received a letter from the local council enclosing a rectification notice and photographs in relation to the AB Town property. The husband states that the costs of cleaning and complying with the rectification notice were $4,400.
On 6 February 2017 orders were made by Justice Austin in relation to the parenting proceedings; a recovery order was made in relation to the child being withheld by the mother.
On 7 February 2017 the mother filed an Application-Contempt alleging that on 30 January 2017 at AM Town the husband contacted firms to value the wife’s companies, and she believes that this was done after the date set out in the Court orders. The order was for the wife’s shareholdings to be valued (not the companies). The wife also alleged that the solicitors had given the valuers deliberately false information.
On 7 February 2017 orders were made by me dismissing Applications in a Case filed by both parties in relation to the parenting proceedings.
An order was also made that the wife file and serve written submissions as to the father’s application for costs of $1,980. That order for costs was ultimately made.

Change of residence for the parties’ child

On 17 February 2017 after the execution of the recovery order, the parties’ child moved to live with the husband.
Orders were made by Justice Austin for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the child, for the child to live with the father and spend supervised time with the mother.
On 21 February 2017 the husband obtained casual employment with Company CC.

Wife voluntary bankrupt – February 2017

On 28 February 2017 the wife entered voluntary bankruptcy in Australia.
The wife then returned to live in New Zealand.
On 2 March 2017 orders were made by Justice Austin dismissing an Application in a Case filed by the wife seeking parenting orders.

Bifurcation of Parenting and Property Proceedings

On 16 March 2017 orders were made by Justice Austin bifurcating the parenting and property proceedings.
The parenting proceedings were set down for four days of final hearing in June 2017 and the property proceedings were adjourned for mention.
A notation was made that the parties agreed that the mother is now a bankrupt as a consequence of a Sequestration Order being made against her on or about 28 February 2017, which will necessitate notice being given to her Trustee in Bankruptcy pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) in respect of the pending property settlement proceedings between the parties.
On 17 March 2017 the AB Town property was sold on the open market to a third party buyer for $95,000. The amount required to discharge the mortgage was $127,453. Together with agent’s fees, legal fees and other adjustments there was a shortfall of $38,162.02. This money was paid from the funds in the husband’s solicitor’s trust account.
On 17 March 2017 the wife abandoned her two appeals filed 4 January 2017. The husband had by then, incurred $2,200 in legal costs.
On 8 June 2017 a valuation report of the JJ Street property assessed the value of property as $930,000 or $1,120,000 if proposed subdivision work was completed.
On 17 June 2017 the husband alleges that on this date the truck plates were returned to WA Transport by the wife’s previous partner, Mr West, more than a year after the wife allegedly sold the truck to Ms AT.

Final Parenting Orders – June 2017

On 30 June 2017 final parenting orders in relation to the parties’ then six year old daughter were made following a four day trial and determination (“the 2017 parenting orders”).
Sole parental responsibility and residence was allocated to the husband. Time and communication between the wife and the subject child is at the discretion of the husband.
A notation was made stating that orders intentionally made no provision for the child to spend time or communicate with the mother and that if, when and how the child may do so are decisions the father shall make as an incident of his sole parental responsibility for the child.
As a result of the 2017 parenting orders the child has remained living with the husband.
On 27 July 2017 the mother filed an Appeal in relation to the 2017 parenting orders. The appeal books were to be filed and served by 15 November 2017.
The wife sought an order that the husband prepare and file the appeal books.
The husband filed an Application in an Appeal seeking a security of costs.
On 7 July 2017 the husband alleges that the wife imported the truck into New Zealand with the assistance of the wife’s then partner, Mr West.
On 12 July 2017 orders were made by Justice Austin dismissing the Application-Contempt filed by the wife on 7 February 2017 and reserving the father’s costs of that day.
The husband alleges that he hired a private investigator who took photographs of the truck parked outside the wife’s property in New Zealand on 27 July 2017.
The husband has Google Map photographs dated August 2017 depicting the truck parked outside the wife’s residence in New Zealand.
On 1 August 2017 the Government of Western Australia Department of Finance signed a Deed of Surrender of Lease and tax invoice in relation to the renting of the WW Town property.
On 2 August 2017 procedural orders were made by Registrar Jackson adjourning the matter.
A notation was made indicating that the financial matter cannot proceed further until there is clarification of the existing assets and liabilities of the parties and the adjournment period will enable the Trustee in Bankruptcy to provide clarification of this in so far as the property of the applicant is concerned.
A further notation was made that there is no change in position to the orders made by Registrar McFadden on 26 October 2016 that a Conciliation Conference would not be appropriate.
On 16 August 2017 the wife filed an Application-Contravention alleging that the husband withdrew the amount of $260,137.46 plus interest from the trust term deposit at AM Town in a deliberate breach of the injunction made 27 January 2016.
On … 2017 the child of the wife and Mr West was born.

Wife begins representing herself

On 25 August 2017 the wife’s solicitor filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act. The wife has been self-represented from this date onwards.
On 4 September 2017 when the matter came before Justice Austin the wife’s Application-Contravention was dismissed. The husband’s costs were also reserved as the wife failed to attend Court.
On 4 September 2017 the husband filed an Application in a Case.
In October 2017 the husband moved to live and work in Melbourne with the child.
On 13 October 2017 the wife filed a Response to the husband’s Application in a Case filed 4 September 2017.
On 27 October 2017 Justice Austin made orders as follows:
·That the monies from the sale of the P Town property be transferred from the controlled money account to the husband’s solicitor’s general trust account;
·The husband was authorised to use this money to pay the expenses and liabilities associated with Matthews Pty Ltd and real properties owned by the company;
·The money was also to be used for payment of all Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”) fees, accounting fees and other professional fees and charges reasonably incurred in the ordinary operation and management of N Pty Ltd, as trustee for the Matthews Superannuation Fund;
·The husband’s costs of this application were reserved until final hearing.
On 7 November 2017 the husband’s Application in an Appeal in relation to the security of costs the husband was seeking in the appeal of the parenting decisions was heard.
On 13 November 2017 the Full Court made orders that the wife’s application for the husband to prepare the appeal books in relation to the wife’s appeal from the parenting orders be dismissed. The wife was ordered to pay to the solicitors for the husband $20,000 as security for costs.
On 20 November 2017 the husband states he received correspondence from the Appeals Registry stating that the appeal was abandoned due to the fact that the wife did not file the appeal books or pay the $20,000 to the husband’s solicitor for security of costs. The husband states he incurred legal costs of $12,595.07 in respect of the appeal.
On 13 December 2017 procedural orders were made by Registrar Jackson; a period of adjournment was allowed to enable the Trustee in Bankruptcy to finalise the bankruptcy matter.
On 14 December 2017 the Suburb F property was sold by the wife’s Trustee in Bankruptcy for $900,000. The amount required to discharge the mortgage was $599,365. The net proceeds were $252,639.
In December 2017 the truck was imported into New Zealand and registered on 19 January 2018 in New Zealand.

Wife’s claim for compensation

At some stage in 2018 the wife probably made a claim for Victim’s Compensation and was given a recognition payment of $5,000. The husband became aware of the payment after reading an affidavit of the wife filed in support of an application for a Protection Order in New Zealand.
The husband states he has recently received from NSW Victim’s Services a Notice of Provisional Order for Restitution whereby they are seeking from the husband the $5,000 they paid to the wife. The husband states he plans to file an objection to this.
In early 2018 the husband obtained his current employment as a general manager.
On 24 January 2018 a new 12 month lease was secured over the WW Town property. The current tenant is paying $1,200 per month. The husband believes the property is currently worth $195,000 however the mortgage remains at $208,000.
On 8 March 2018 the wife filed an Application-Contempt.
On 21 March 2018 the Trustee in Bankruptcy filed an Application in a Case seeking to be joined as a party to the property proceedings and associated orders relating to the sale of the Suburb F property and surplus funds. The husband consented to the Application in a Case filed by the trustee.
On 28 March 2018 procedural orders were made by Registrar Jackson.
On 9 May 2018 Justice Austin dismissed the wife’s Application-Contempt filed 8 March 2018.
On 14 May 2018 the wife filed a Notice of Appeal in relation to the orders made by Justice Austin on 9 May 2018.
The husband filed an Application for Security of Costs in relation to this appeal.
On 18 March 2018 the wife filed a Response to the Application in a Case filed by the Trustee in Bankruptcy.
On 23 May 2018 the husband filed an Application in a Case prohibiting the wife from instituting proceedings involving the husband without leave of the Court, as well as costs.

Parties divorce

On … 2018 the parties are divorced.
On 13 June 2018 the wife filed an Application in a Case seeking that Justice Austin be disqualified from hearing any further applications and that the proceedings be transferred to the Melbourne Registry.

Austin J self-disqualified

On 15 June 2018 his Honour Justice Austin made orders disqualifying himself from further hearing matters involving these parties and transferring all outstanding applications to me.
On 26 June 2018 the wife filed an Application in an Appeal for an order that her abandoned appeal against the 2017 parenting orders be re-instated.
In July 2018 the wife apparently separated from her partner, Mr West.
On 2 July 2018 the wife terminated her agreement with BG Real Estate on the basis that she was taking over the management of the rental properties at the JJ Street property herself.
On 3 July 2018 the husband filed a Response to the wife’s Application in a Case seeking that the application to have the matter transferred to the Melbourne Registry be dismissed.
On 17 July 2018 Justice Ainslie-Wallace in the Full Court of the Family Court dismissed the wife’s Application to re-open the appeal of the parenting proceedings. The husband states he incurred legal costs of $1,560.
On 25 July 2018 the wife filed a further Application in a Case seeking an ADVO, costs and spousal maintenance.
On 26 July 2018 Justice Ryan makes orders in relation to the mother’s Notice of Appeal filed 14 May 2018, that the wife pay the husband security of costs to the sum of $15,000.
On 30 July 2018 the husband filed a Response to the Application in a Case seeking that the wife be restrained from dealing with any surplus funds from the sale of the Suburb F property otherwise in accordance with any orders.

Wife’s Bankruptcy Annulled – 31 July 2018

On 31 July 2018 the wife’s voluntary bankruptcy was annulled. The trustee caused the sum of $42,129 to be paid to the wife’s admitted unsecured creditors. The total cost of the bankruptcy otherwise was $102,165.
In July 2018 the husband alleges that he has screenshots from a NZ trading website which lists the truck for sale for $130,000 probably by the wife’s partner.
On 5 August 2018 the wife listed the truck for sale on social media for $140,000.
On 10 September 2018 the husband states that the wife was granted a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) by the Family Court at JJ Street New Zealand. The husband was not aware of this until he was served the documents. The husband filed a Notice of Intention to Appear and Affidavit by his Australian solicitor. The husband engaged CF Legal to act on his behalf and an application was filed to dismiss the proceedings. The wife opposed the application.
On 11 September 2018 the wife filed an Application-Contravention in relation to the parenting orders. The wife also filed on the same date a Notice of Child Abuse.
On 4 October 2018 the wife filed a Further Amended Response seeking parenting and property orders.
On 5 October 2018 four separate judgments and orders were delivered by me in this matter:
a)The Application in Case in relation to the change of venue filed by the wife on 13 June 2018 was dismissed. Costs were reserved;
b)In relation to costs of the husband due to the failure of the wife to appear at Court for her own Application in Case in February 2017, the wife was ordered to pay the husband $1,980;
c)In relation to the bankruptcy proceedings, solicitors for the former trustee of the wife were ordered to pay any excess funds from the sale of the Suburb F property after the annulment of the bankruptcy, into the husband’s solicitor’s trust account. This money can be used to pay all liabilities in respect of Matthews Pty Ltd;
d)In relation to the Application in a Case filed by the husband on 23 May 2018 for a vexatious proceedings order to be made against the wife; the application was dismissed and no order was made as to costs.
On 5 October 2018 the Trustee in Bankruptcy transferred the balance of $98,336.18 into the husband’s solicitor’s trust account following the sale of the Suburb F property and the discharging of the bankrupt estate.
On 17 October 2018 in relation to the Appeal filed by the wife on 14 May 2018 the Appeals Registry directed the wife to file a Notice of Discontinuance or pay the security of costs as ordered by Justice Ryan on 26 July 2018.
Ultimately the wife filed a Notice of Discontinuance. The husband states he incurred legal costs to the sum of $6,545.

Sale of the Truck - October 2018

On 21 October 2018 NZ Transport records show that the wife sold the truck to Ms Y.
Ms Y was called as a witness by the wife. In her affidavit Ms Y had stated that she bought the truck from Ms AT in WA at that date.
In cross-examination Ms Y denied knowing or having met Ms AT. She answered honestly that she had first seen the truck “at [Ms Norris’] [the wife]”.
On 31 October 2018 the husband filed a Further Amended Initiating Application seeking interim and final property orders as well as seeking that the wife’s parenting orders be dismissed.
The husband stated he also had Google Map photographs dated November 2018 depicting the truck outside the wife’s house.
On 16 November 2018 orders were made dismissing the wife’s contravention application and ordering the wife to pay the husband’s costs in defending the application.
Orders were also made adjourning the Rice v Asplund threshold application by the wife to the trial.
On 23 November 2018 the Trustee in Bankruptcy transferred the balance of $2,081 into the husband’s solicitor’s trust account from the closure of a bank account for the bankrupt estate for the wife.
On 13 December 2018 the wife filed an Amended Case Application seeking spousal maintenance and for funds from the husband’s solicitor’s trust account to be deposited into her bank account.
On 17 December 2018 all outstanding applications were adjourned until the final hearing dates for the property proceedings, where the Rice v Asplund issue will be dealt with.
On 18 January 2019 the matter was confirmed to have a final hearing allocation of four days.
On 7 February 2019 orders were made listing the matter for four days of final hearing time commencing 8, 9, 14 and 15 August 2019.
On 14 February 2019 the wife filed an Application in a Case seeking orders that Mr BW be appointed as a single expert witness in regards to handwriting analysis. The wife was furthermore seeking that the funds in the husband’s solicitor’s trust account be used to pay the expenses of the single expert witness.
On 13 March 2019 the wife commenced proceedings in the Family Court at City BB New Zealand for orders relating to relationship property, seeking that the New Zealand Court determine the property dispute between the parties. The husband filed an Application for Stay.
On 31 March 2019 the husband alleges that the current value of loan secured by mortgage on real property owned by Company AA NZ was $645,021.
On … April 2019 a judge in the Family Court of New Zealand at City BB discharged the TPO that was put in place on 10 August 2018 and found that the proceedings for a final protection order were an ‘abuse of process.’ The husband states he incurred legal costs of $6,744.
On 18 April 2019 the husband filed a Response to an Application in a Case seeking that the wife’s application for the appointment of Mr BW, handwriting expert, be dismissed.
On 26 April 2019 orders are made dismissing the wife’s application for the appointment of a handwriting expert, the husband’s costs were also reserved until the final hearing. The husband was also ordered to provide to the wife a list of payments made by him to the wife.
On 27 May 2019 the wife filed an Appeal in the Family Court of New Zealand at City BB in regards to the orders made on … April 2019 and a Notice of Leave to appeal outside of statutory timeframes. This was listed for case management on 19 August 2019.
On 5 June 2019 the husband filed an Application in a Case seeking leave in relation to the issuing of subpoena and the filing of affidavits in relation to the valuation of the JJ Street property and the wife’s companies.
On 10 June 2019 the property proceedings commenced by the wife in the New Zealand Family Court on 13 March 2019 came before the judge, who was not prepared to set the matter down for hearing until the outcome of the Australian proceedings is known and has adjourned the matter to 4 September 2019 to see if the hearing preceded in Australia.
On 11 June 2019 the husband filed an Amended Application in a Case.

Approach to alteration of interests in property

In considering applications for alteration of property interests and transfer of property the Court must:
(i)Identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in property;[16]
(ii)Consider whether it would be just and equitable in the particular circumstances to make an alteration;
(iii)
If an alteration should be made, to consider the matters contained in

ss 79(4) and 75(2) of the Act in coming to an adjustment; and
(iv)Analyse and consider whether the adjustment under consideration would be just and equitable.
[16] Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; Bevan & Bevan [2013] FLC 93-545.

Identify the assets and liabilities of the parties

The parties’ assets are set out in the joint Balance Sheet:[17]
[17] Exhibit 3.

Ownership		Description	Applicant’s value	Respondent’s value
ASSETS
1.	J	Balance held in trust account of Oliver Campbell Heslop Solicitors, being the net proceeds of sale of O Street P Town, NSW and E Street, Suburb F, NSW	$ 124,428	$ 124,428
2.	H	BX Bank Savings Account …49	$ 186	$ 186
3.	H	Real estate at U Street, Suburb T, Victoria as to a one-fifth share	$ 0	$ E235,000
4.	W	Proceeds of sale of Business asset 1	$ 150,000	$ 0
5.	W	Truck	$ 130,000	$ 0
6.	W	NZ corporation Company AA Limited – company number … – NZBN … – value of shareholding	$E 444,424	$ -25,819
7.	W	NZ corporation Company W Limited– company number … - NZBN … – value of shareholding	$E 316,860	$ -123,530
8.	W	USA corporation Company W, LLC – incorporated in the State of State AE control number … – value of shareholding	$E 223,984	$ -3,700
9.	W	BH Bank Account …15 balance as at 2 April 2016	$ 562	$ 0
10.	W	BY Bank Account …-00	$ unknown	$ 0
11.	W	BZ Bank Account …-03	$ unknown	$
12.	W	BZ Bank Account (jointly with Mr BP) 50% $66	$ unknown	$ 33
13.	W	BJ Bank account	$ unknown	$ 0
14.	W	Company PP Shares Ref …46	$ unknown	$ 0
15.	W	Company PP Myshare Ref …61	$ unknown	$ 0
16.	W	Shares in CA Healthfund	$ 2,231	$ 0
17.	W	Shares in Company CB	$ unknown	$ 0
18.	W	BJ Bank MasterCard …09 with a credit balance	$ 1,422	$ 0
19.	W	Motor vehicle 1 with cancelled registration …	$ 11,990	$ 0
20.	H	Wedding Dress	$ 0	$ 2500
21.	H	Child’s passport and spare passport photos	$ 0	$ 120
22.	H	Samsung WIFI reverse cycle Air-conditioner	$ 0	$ 2200
23.	H	Wife’s framed Mechanical engineering degree	$ 0	$ 1500
24.	H	PVC Fencing material	$ 0	$ 15,000
25.	H	Business asset 4	$ 0	$ 10,000
26.	H	Business asset 2 and Business asset 3	$ 0	$ 1,500
27.	H	Seagate 1Tb backup drive	$ 0	$ 125
28.	H	Motor vehicle 4	$ 0	$ 5,000
29.	H	Dirt bike	$ 0	$ 8,000
30.	H	JetSki	$ 0	$ 8,000
31.	H	Boat	$ 0	$ 30,000
32.	H	Ride on lawnmower	$ 0	$ 1,500
33.	H	Bank account opened by Mr Matthews Snr. Possibly under the name of N Pty Ltd	$ 0	$ UK
Total		$ E1,406,087	Unknown

ADDBACKS
34.	W	Costs of bankruptcy, not including payments to creditors	$ 102,166	$ 0
35.	W	AZ Bank Accounts with base number …33 (10 x term deposits and 2 x bank accounts)	$E 196,053	$ 0
36.	H	Sale of P Town property not at arms-length and well below market value	$ 0	$ 400,000
37.	H	ATO debt already paid for GST claimed on P Town property sold within the GST claim back period on capital improvements.	$ 0	$ 4,450
38.	ATO debt for incorrect GST claiming in 2013	$ 0	$ 8,510
39.	H	Business asset 1	$ 0	$ 850,000
40.	H	Truck	$ 0	$ 70,000
41.	H	Loss of income due to permanent damage the Husband has inflicted upon the wife	$ 0	$ 3,200,000
42.	H	Legal Fees to date	$ 0	$ 175,000
43.	H	Motor vehicle 2	$ 0	$ 8,000
44.	H	Property at 2 GG Street value increase	$ 0	$ 250,000
45.	H	St John Ambulance	$ 0	$ 98
46.	H	… Physiotherapy	$ 0	$ 230
47.	H	Loss of Capital due to not paying down mortgages	$ 200,000
48.	H	Late fees due to not paying bills such as ASIC on time	$ E1,000
49.	H	Loss of income from not having capital in a term deposit	$ E15,000

Total

$ 298,219

$E 5,182,288

LIABILITIES
50.	H	ATO Debt for 2014-2015 Financial Year	$ 1,540	$ 0
51.	H	BX Bank MasterCard …30	$ 204	$ 0
52.	H	Debt due to Mr Matthews Snr	$ 122,335	$ 0
53.	H	Debt due to Ms X Matthews	$E 128,288	$ 0
54.	H	Outstanding Legal fees (solicitor and barrister)	$E 18,000	$ 0
55.	J	Australian corporation Matthews Pty Ltd ACN … – value of shareholding – negative value – liabilities (NAB loans of $646,402) exceed assets	$E 224,000	$ unknown
56.	W	Debt due to Mr BP	$ 0	$ 25,000
57.	W	Loan from Company W Ltd to Matthews Pty Ltd trust	$ 0	$ 200,000
58.	W	Loan from Ms Norris to Matthews Pty Ltd trust	$ 0	$ 100,000
59.	W	Loan for Company AA with AZ Bank	$ 0	$ 641,851
60.	W	Loan from Company W Ltd to Company AA	$ 0	$ 227,452
61.	W	AMEX	$ 837

Total

$E494,367

$E1,419,140 sic

SUPERANNUATION
Member		Name of Fund	Type of Interest	Applicant’s value	Respondent’s value
62.	J	N Pty Ltd as trustee for the Matthews Superannuation Fund	Accumulation	$ 451,929	$ unknown
63.	W	Company PP...59	Accumulation	$ unknown	$ 0
64.	H	Superfund 2	Accumulation	$ 19,025	$ unknown
65.	H	Superfund 1	Unknown	$ 0	$ unknown
66.	W	Superfund 5	$ unknown	$ 81,820

Total

$ 470,954

$ Unknown

FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Ownership		Description	Applicant’s value	Respondent’s value
67.	H	Company CD	$ 0	$ 140,000
68.	H	Gifts from Mr Matthews Snr	$ 0	$ 122,335
69.	H	Gifts from Ms X Matthews	$ 0	$ E128,288

Total

$ 0

$ E390,623

Husband’s Notes

In relation to any disputed items and all disputed values for items a party should state, using the item number as a heading:

Why an item should not be on the balance sheet.
Whether expert evidence is required to resolve a dispute as to value and what steps have been taken to agree upon and appoint a single expert.
Whether documents in the possession of the other party need to be provided before the value of an item can be agreed.
Any other comment a party wishes to make in relation to the disputed item.

Item No
1	The funds held in trust were initially comprised of $256,834.37 from the sale of O Street P Town (held in the husband’s name) and $100,417.55 from the sale of E Street, Suburb F (held in the wife’s name and sold by her Trustee in Bankruptcy). The funds have been used to service the liabilities of Matthews Pty Ltd and the parties’ self-managed superannuation fund and are therefore reducing each month. Oliver Campbell Heslop Solicitors provided to Ms Norris’s then lawyers, FF Lawyers, via propriety post on 26 May 2017 copies of the Trust Account Ledger for the period 19 February 2016 to 7 March 2016, Controlled Monies Ledger for the period 7 March 2016 to 20 February 2017 and Trust Account Ledger for the period 20 February 2017 to 26 May 2017 and on 19 June 2017 with copies of the marked up Trust Ledger and all supporting documentation. Oliver Campbell Heslop provided Trust Account Statements to Ms Norris via email on (a) 16 August 2018 for the period 19 June 2017 to 8 June 2018 (b) 16 August 2018 for the period 8 June to 16 August 2018 (c) 14 December 2018 for the period 8 June to 14 December 2018 and (d) 22 July 2019 for the period 8 June 2018 to 1 July 2019.
2	This is the Husband’s day to day savings account and therefore will have a variable balance. On 26 July 2019 the Wife was provided with an internet printout showing the current balance.
3	(a) The Husband is registered on the title of this property for a one-fifth share, as tenants-in-common with his parents who are the registered proprietors of the other four-fifths share. (b) The Husband asserts that he holds his one-fifth interest on trust for his parents, his beneficial interest already having been paid out in 2005, and that it should not be included in the asset pool. (c) The Husband purchased the one-fifth share in the property on 28 May 1991 for $31,000. (d) In July 2005 the property was valued at between $370.000 and $400,000 by CG Real Estate. (e) In July 2005 the Husband’s parents paid the Husband $74,000 for his one-fifth share in the property, this amount being one-fifth of $370,000. The transaction is particularised in paragraphs 79 to 82 in the Husband’s Affidavit filed 19 August 2015, and copies of the contemporaneous records, including evidence of payment received by the Husband, from July 2005 are disclosed at Annexure J thereto. (f) No formal valuation has been conducted.
4	Proceeds of sale of Business asset 1 (a) Business asset 1 was a 4* rated asset. (b) Business asset 1 was an asset owned by the now deregistered Australian corporation LL Pty Ltd ACN … of which the Wife was sole director and shareholder. (c) Under cover of letter from AW Lawyers dated 9 August 2016 the Wife provided a Tax Invoice in favour of Company AL dated 7 December 2015 selling Business asset 1 purportedly for $20,000 plus GST. (d) The Wife asserted a sale value for Business asset 1 of $20,000 in the Joint Balance Sheet filed 25 October 2016. (e) Documents produced on subpoena by Company AL show that an amount of $150,000 was paid by for Business asset 1 in December 2015. Email correspondence from the Wife to the purchaser shows that the Wife requested that the purchaser pay $22,000 to the LL Pty Ltd CBA account and “send $128,000 overseas”. The Wife provided the details for a AZ Bank account in New Zealand held in the name of Ms Norris or Ms BK Norris. The documents disclose that $128,000 was transferred to the nominated AZ Bank account in New Zealand. (f) The Wife made no other disclosure, financial or otherwise, with respect to the sale of Business asset 1 until cross-examined in Court, at which time she asserted that she had previously transferred a share in the asset to her parents in 2013 and it is for that reason that an amount of the sale price was paid to a bank account in their names. Until the Wife gave that evidence during cross-examination the Husband had no knowledge whatsoever of the alleged transfer of a share in the business asset to the Wife’s parents. (g) The Husband disputes the alleged transfer of a share in the asset to the Wife’s parents and says that the funds received into the Wife’s parents NZ bank account was being held by them on trust for the Wife and that the Wife ultimately received the whole of the $150,000 sale price.
5	Truck Motorhome VIN … (“truck”) (a) The truck was an asset owned by the now deregistered Australian corporation LL Pty Ltd ACN … of which the Wife was sole director and shareholder. (b) The Financial Statements for LL Pty Ltd show the purchase cost of the truck in 2009 to be $139,444. (c) In the Depreciation Schedule for LL Pty Ltd for the year ending 30 June 2016, the truck has a depreciated value of $65,202.56. (d) Wife, in email correspondence with Husband’s solicitor dated 30 March 2016, asserted the truck had a value of $80,000. (e) The truck was to be valued at the Wife’s home by CH Valuers on 14 May 2016. (f) Wife purported to sell truck on 11 May 2016, with an amount of $9,500 entitled “truck sale” being deposited to the LL Pty Ltd CBA account that day, in cash, at the BE Town branch. (g) Under cover of letter from AW Lawyers dated 9 August 2016, the Wife provide a copy of a Government of WA Department of Transport Invoice for Transfer fee and duty provided as evidence of sale. The Invoice states that the Purchaser, Ms AT of BF Street, Suburb AU WA, acquired the truck on 14 April 2016 for $10,000. (h) The Husband asserts that Ms AT is not a genuine arms-length third-party purchaser and that she is a friend of the Wife. (i) The Husband asserts that the alleged sale is not a genuine sale, and that the true market value of the truck is well in excess of the amount the Wife asserts she received for it. (j) The Husband subsequently became aware that the truck was at the Wife’s property at JJ Street, New Zealand and has two photographs of the truck taken by a private investigator on 26 September 2017 at JJ Street, New Zealand. He believes that the truck in those photographs is one and the same truck as that which was owned by LL Pty Ltd in Australia. (k) The truck is parked outside JJ Street in Google Earth photographs dated August 2017 and November 2018. (l) Documents produced on subpoena by NZ Transport Agency show that the truck was imported into New Zealand by Mr CJ on 7 July 2017, and that is was registered in New Zealand in the Wife’s name on and from 19 January 2018. (m) The truck was listed for sale on social media in June 2018 for $140,000 and on a NZ trading website in July 2018, for $130,000. He believes that the truck in those online listings is one and the same truck as that which was owned by LL Pty Ltd in Australia. (n) NZ Transport Agency records show that the truck was purportedly sold by the Wife to Ms Y on 27 November 2018. No disclosure has been made by the Wife as to the amount she received for the truck, and the Husband is of the view that, notwithstanding the change in registered owner, the truck is most likely still in the possession and control of the Wife.
6	Company AA Limited – NZ corporation (a) Wife is the sole director and sole shareholder with 120 shares. (b) The Husband’s value for the Wife’s shareholding in Company AA NZ has been estimated based on the assets and liabilities of which the Husband is aware. No valuation of the shareholding has been conducted. (c) Company AA NZ owns real estate at JJ Street, NZ (“JJ Street Property”). The JJ Street Property consists of 9 units. (d) A Market Valuation report conducted for Company AA NZ and AZ Bank by CK Limited on 8 June 2017 provides an “existing” value for the JJ Street Property of NZD930,000 and a combined market value for Lots 1 & 2 if the subdivision is completed of NZD1,120,000. The JJ Street Property was granted Resource Consent SUB… on 25 January 2016, granting consent to subdivide the property. (e) Based on the available information, the Husband believes there is equity in the JJ Street Property of between NZD279,000 and NZD469,000, which equates to between $264,380 and $444,424. (f) The Statement of Accounts and Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2018 discloses Total Assets of NZD1,148,533, External Liabilities of NZD853,516 and Shareholders Equity of NZD295,017. (g) The units in the JJ Street Property are currently leased and the Wife has not provided any particulars with respect to the leasing and property management of the units for the period since she took over the property management. (h) Although the rents from the units are paid into the Company AA NZ bank account, they do not seem to be accounted for in the company financial reports and tax returns and it is unclear who receives the benefit of the rent, and who pays or is liable for any tax on that income.
7	Company W Limited – NZ corporation (a) Wife is sole director and sole shareholder with 100 shares (b) Value of Wife’s shareholding in Company W Limited is unknown as no valuation of the shareholding has been conducted. (c) The Statement of Accounts and Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2015 disclosed Total Assets of NZD370,826, External Liabilities of NZD1,102 and Shareholders Equity of NZD369,724, which equates to $350,350. (d) Current assets disclosed in the 2015 Financial Report include NZD191,884 in a AZ Bank Savings Account. It is not known what happened to these monies. (e) The Statement of Accounts and Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2018 discloses Total Assets of NZD318,108, External Liabilities of NZD1,248 and Shareholders Equity of NZD316,860. (f) Husband has adopted value of Shareholders Equity disclosed in the 2018 Financial Report.
8	Company W, LLC incorporated in State AE USA (a) Wife appears to be the sole member. LLCs have members / managers rather than directors. LLCs do not have shareholders; they have owners. (b) Value of Wife’s shareholding in Company W LLC is unknown as no valuation of the shareholding has been conducted. (c) Company W LLC owns real estate at AC Street, AD Town State AE (“State AE Property”). (d) The State AE Property was purchased by Company W LLC on 28 July 2014 for USD97,000. (e) Based on values provided by website 1, website 2 and website 3 the Husband believes the State AE Property to be currently worth around USD142,654 and USD159,892, which equates to $199,836 and $223,984, depending on the exchange rate. (f) The property is unencumbered and, as at February 2016, was tenanted and being managed by AY Property Management. The Husband has sought to have a subpoena served AY Property Management by way of a Request made under the Hague Convention to the US Department of Justice. There has been no notice received by the Husband that the Request has been served. No documents have been produced. (g) The Wife has made no disclosure with respect to the income she receives from the property. Public records indicate the property taxes to be less than USD800 per annum. (h) No property management records bank statements or financial statements have been provided for H4CLCC despite numerous requests made of the Wife to provide them. Some IRS forms for 2014 have been provided.
10	No disclosure made by Wife with respect to this account. It is referred to in the documents produced on subpoena by AZ Bank.
11	No disclosure made by the Wife with respect to this account. It is referred to in the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed in the property proceedings the Wife has commenced in New Zealand.
12	No disclosure made by the Wife with respect to this account. It is referred to in documents produced on subpoena by BG Real Estate.
13	No disclosure made by the Wife with respect to this account. It is referred to in documents produced on subpoena by BH Bank. The Husband did not have the opportunity to issue a subpoena to BJ Bank.
14 and 15	Wife asserts she has sold these shares for $10,000 but has not provided the Husband with any documentation or disclosure with respect to the alleged sale or the funds received by her.
16	Husband relies on Computershare Investor Centre statement dated 21 July 2016, provided by the Wife, showing a holding of 375 shares.
17	Wife has provided no documentation with respect to this shareholding
18	According to Statement dated 19 July 2016, the Wife’s BJ Bank MasterCard has a credit limit of $500, but a current credit balance of $1,422.13, making overall available credit of $1,922.13. No updated documents have been provided.
19	Motor vehicle 1 (a) Wife has previously denied any knowledge of this vehicle, including in open Court on 24 November 2016. (b) A subpoena was issued to RMS which disclosed that the vehicle was bought by the Wife’s current partner Mr West on 30 May 2016 for $11,990. (c) Registration was transferred to Mr West on 21 June 2016. (d) Mr West attended at RMS Suburb I on 24 November 2016 and cancelled the registration. (e) No information has been provided with respect to the source funds to purchase the vehicle. (f) The Husband believes this vehicle is now in New Zealand with the Wife. (g) The Wife has not provided any disclosure with respect to the vehicle.
20	The wedding dress was abandoned by the Wife and the Husband donated it charity. He denies it had a second-hand value of $2,500.
21	The Husband denies stealing the child’s passport and passport photos (as asserted by the Wife), does not have them in his possession and has no knowledge of their whereabouts.
22	The Husband denies stealing the air-conditioner (as asserted by the Wife), does not have it in his possession and has no knowledge of its whereabouts.
23	Husband does not have possession of the Wife’s framed degree and has no knowledge as to its whereabouts.
24	The Wife was in occupation of the P Town Property to the exclusion of the Husband from August 2015 until just prior to completion of the sale in February 2016. The Husband asked the Wife to remove the PVC fencing from the P Town Property prior to completion of the sale. The Wife refused to remove the fencing and it was left at the property.
25	The Husband’s solicitor sent the Wife an email at 4.18pm on 11 January 2016 saying “Our client believes that Business assets 1, 2 and 3 are still at the property. Is it your intention to remove / relocate these assets? If not, could you kindly let us know without delay so that our client can make appropriate arrangements for them.” The Wife did not reply to the question.. Husband’s solicitor sent the Wife a further email at 11.36am on 12 January 2016 saying “Again we ask you… what your intentions are with respect to the 3 business assets still at the property. Do you intend to keep any of them, or is our client to deal with them?” The Husband does not have possession of Business Asset 4 and has no idea as to its whereabouts. He assumes the Wife removed the assets from the P Town Property as it was no longer there after the Wife vacated the property.
26	In reply to the aforementioned email in 24 above from the Husband’s solicitor at 11.36am on 12 January 2016 the Wife replied via email at 10.14am on 13 January 2016 “I have no idea about Business asset 2. I note that the asset did not go to WA. The tenant also advised me that she had found a home for Business assets 2 and 3. She put up an add (sic) of Social media. I have a copy of the add if you require.” The Husband sold Business asset 2 to a neighbour of the P Town Property for $1. Business asset 2 was at the P Town Property when the Husband purchased the property, and he left her there following the sale of the property. He does not have possession of the asset and has no current information as to the whereabouts of the asset.
27	The Husband denies stealing the back-up drive (as asserted by the Wife), does not have it in his possession and has no knowledge as to its whereabouts.
28	This vehicle was sold during the marriage, with the full knowledge of the Wife, prior to the parties moving to Western Australia.
29	The dirt-bike was owned by the Husband when he lived in Darwin and was sold during the parties’ relationship, with full knowledge of the Wife.
30	The Jet ski was sold during the marriage in around 2009 or 2010, with the full knowledge of the Wife, prior to the parties moving to Western Australia.
31	The boat was sold during the marriage, with the full knowledge of the Wife, prior to the parties moving to Western Australia. The Husband denies the allegation made by the Wife in point 30 of her notes with respect to hiding money from his first wife.
32	The ride-on lawn mower was sold during the marriage, with the full knowledge of the Wife, in Western Australia prior to the parties returning to live in NSW.
33	The Husband has no interest whatsoever in any bank account held in the name of his father Mr Matthews Snr. Mr Matthews Snr is not holding any monies on trust for the Husband or for the Husband’s benefit.
34	The costs of the Wife’s bankruptcy, not including payments to the admitted unsecured creditors, totalled $102,166 and was comprised of (a) Remuneration to the Trustee in the amount of $53,839.50 including GST (b) Disbursements of the Trustee in the amount of $3334.95 including GST (c) Legal fees and associated disbursements of the Trustee in the amount of $24,926 including GST and (d) Realisation charge of $20,065.43 The Husband says that the Wife did not need to file for bankruptcy and that these costs were unnecessarily incurred and resulted in a reduction in the size of the asset pool.
35	AZ Bank Accounts which were held in New Zealand, and all closed on 21 July 2017, with base number …33, being the following accounts Term Deposits: …71-0001 $10,200.00 …71-0002 $500.00 …72-0001 $100.00 …73-0001 $100.00 …74-0001 $100.00 …75-0001 $100.00 …76-0001 $100.00 …77-0001 $100.00 …78-0001 $100.00 …79-0001 $100.00 Bank Accounts …28 $1,274.24 …80 $194,120.50 (a) The abovementioned accounts had a combined balance in September 2015 of NZD206,894.74, which equates to $196,053. (b) The Husband was unaware of the existence of the accounts until recently. He was provided with information about the existence of the accounts by the Wife’s Bankruptcy Trustee. (c) The accounts were held in the Wife’s sole name up until 7 August 2015. (d) On 7 August 2015 the Wife added her mother Ms BK Norris as a joint owner on the accounts. (e) On 28 September 2015 Ms BK Norris was changed to the preferred customer on the accounts and the Wife was removed as a joint owner. The accounts were then held in the sole name of Ms BK Norris. (f) The Husband says that the change in account owner was done by the Wife in order to hide the funds from him and from the Court and that the funds were thereafter held on trust for the Wife by her Ms BK Norris and should be included in the asset pool. (g) All of the accounts were closed on 21 July 2017, and it is not known what happened to the funds.
36	The Husband does not agree with this addback. In documents provided to the Husband’s solicitor in 2015 the Wife asserted that the P Town Property had a value of $750,000 and at that time the husband believed it to have a value of $700,000. On 17 July 2015 BL Real Estate Agents estimated it to be worth $675,000 to $755,000. It was sold in November 2015 by BM Real Estate pursuant to an Exclusive Agency Agreement in an arm’s length transaction to a bona fide third party purchaser for $785,000.
37	The Husband does not agree with this addback. It was a debt incurred by the now-deregistered company LL Pty Ltd.
38	The Husband does not agree with this addback. It was a debt incurred by the now-deregistered company LL Pty Ltd.
39	The Husband does not agree with this addback. The value of the asset is what it actually sold for.
40	The Husband does not agree with this addback. Husband asserts that as at July 2017 this vehicle was in the Wife’s possession in New Zealand.
41	The Husband does not agree with this addback. The Wife’s asserted lost future wages are not a proper item to be added back to the property pool. The Husband denies causing any damage to the Wife’s back
42	The Husband does not agree with this addback.
43	The Husband does not agree with this addback. The vehicle was registered in the Husband’s name and used by him. It was a 2002 model with over 355,000 kms on it. It required over $2,000 in repairs and as a result was sold to a bona fide third party purchaser for $1,300. The Wife was provided via email on 16 August 2018 with all relevant documentation regarding the sale including the quote for repairs.
44	The Husband does not agree with this addback. Husband denies coercing the Wife as asserted. The property was sold by the Wife during the marriage.
45	The Husband does not agree with this addback. The Husband denies causing any damage to the Wife’s back.
46	The Husband does not agree with this addback. The Husband denies causing any damage to the Wife’s back.
47	The Husband does not agree with this addback..
48	The Husband does not agree with this addback.
49	The Husband does not agree with this addback.
50	The Husband says this liability relates to income tax not remitted following payment for the contract work performed via BN Pty Limited, which he says was during the marriage. It is income tax payable by the Husband for income earned pre-separation.
52	The Husband’s father has loaned the Husband various amounts between 6 October 2015 and current date in order to pay some of the Husband’s legal fees. The Husband’s father has kept a comprehensive record of the payments and expects to be repaid at the conclusion of the matter.
53	The Husband’s aunt has loaned the Husband various amounts between late 2015 and current date in order to pay some of the Husband’s legal fees. The Husband’s aunt has not gifted these funds and expects to be repaid at the conclusion of the matter.
55	Matthews Pty Ltd ACN … - Australian Corporation (a) The Husband and Wife were both directors of Matthews Pty Ltd. (b) The Wife resigned as a director on 10 November 2016. She did not notify the Husband of her resignation. (c) The Husband and the Wife each hold 12 ordinary shares. (d) Matthews Pty Ltd is the registered proprietor of real estate at 1-2 XX Street R Town WA (“R Town Property”). Real Estate agent Mr BU currently estimates the value of the R Town Property to be $200,000 to $220,000. The R Town Property is subject to a mortgage debt (BSB … Acc …01) of $456,000. Negative equity is therefore at best $236,000. The market in R Town is very depressed and properties do not sell quickly. The property has not had a tenant since 2015. (e) Matthews Pty Ltd is the registered proprietor of real estate at VV Street WW Town WA (“WW Town Property’). Real Estate Agent Ms BV currently estimates the property to be worth around $220,000. The WW Town Property is subject to a mortgage debt of $208,000 (BSB … Acc …66). Equity is therefore no more than $12,000. The WW Town Property is currently tenanted. (f) Matthews Pty Ltd therefore owns real estate worth, at best, $440,000, subject to mortgages totalling $664,000 – a shortfall of $224,000. (g) Matthews Pty Ltd NAB bank account which receives rent and from which mortgage payments are taken is BSB …05. An amount of $5,000 is paid into that account each month from the funds held in trust with Oliver Campbell Heslop Solicitors in order to cover the mortgage shortfall.
56	(a) The Husband disputes validity of this alleged debt. (b) No particulars have been provided with respect to this alleged debt other than a handwritten note from Mr BP dated 18 February 2016 which states that he is owed $25,000 by Company AA Limited for “services performed on” 2 GG Street, HH Town, NZ and JJ Street. There are no details provided as to when these alleged services were rendered or what they were with respect to at either property. (c) There is also a letter from the companies’ accountant which is written to the Wife confirming that she has indicated to the accountant that she has given “an undertaking” to pay $25,000 to Mr BP and further notes that as there has been no invoice rendered by Mr BP so it cannot be recorded in the accounting records. (d) The Husband believes that Mr BP was previously in a romantic relationship with the Wife. (e) According to a NZ Companies Search, Mr BP and the Wife both used to live at CL Street, CM Town, NZ. (f) Mr BP and the Wife were the only two shareholders (1 & 99 shares respectively) in a NZ corporation called BQ Limited, from its incorporation on 7 June 2007 until its dissolution on 19 November 2008.
57	The Wife has not provided any evidence with respect to this alleged loan.
58	The Wife has not provided any evidence with respect to this alleged loan.
59	The Wife denies that Company AA Ltd should be part of the asset pool, but wants the liability to be included.
60	The Wife denies that Company W Limited and Company AA Limited should be part of the asset pool, but wants the alleged liability to be included.
61	The Wife has not provided any documentation to support this alleged debt.
62	A current internet printout showing the balance in the account was provided to the Wife by email on 26 July 2019.
64	A current internet printout showing the balance in the account was provided to the Wife by email on 26 July 2019.
65	Notwithstanding that it says “Superfund 1” on his payslips the Husband does not have Superfund 1. He has Superfund 2.
66	Wife has not provided any documentation or disclosure with respect to this superannuation fund.
67	The Husband denies that his employment income should be treated as a financial resource.
68	The Husband denies that he has received monetary gifts from his father and that his father should be treated as a financial resource.
69	The Husband denies that he has received monetary gifts from his aunt and that his aunt should be treated as a financial resource.

Analysis of Balance Sheet

The following items are removed from the Balance Sheet:

Assets

Item 3
The one-fifth share of the Suburb T property.
The Court is satisfied on the unchallenged evidence of the husband and the husband’s father that the husband’s parents are the beneficial owners of the one fifth share held as a legal interest by the husband, and have been since July 2005.
Items 10-15;17
No value has been able to be attributed to these accounts and shares. They will be taken into account in relation to conduct and compliance as conduct by the wife.
Item 18
BJ Bank Master Card. Probably cancelled by Trustee in Bankruptcy as asserted by wife.
Item 20
The wedding dress of the wife is not in possession of either party. It was donated to charity by the husband.
Item 21
The passport for the child. It had a cost but does not have a present value.
Items 22 and 23
Neither party has these items in possession.
Item 24
The fencing materials were left on the P Town property and acquired by the purchaser.
Items 25 and 26
Both parties disclaim having Business assets 2, 3 and 4 in possession. Each believed the other took Business asset 4. The husband gave Business asset 2 to a neighbour. Business asset 3 was at the P Town property when the property was sold.
Item 27
This item of small value is not in the possession of either party.
Items 28-31
I accept that the Motor vehicle 4, a dirt bike, a jetski and a boat were sold early in the parties’ relationship before they moved to WA.
Item 32
The parties agree that the lawn mower was purchased when they lived in WA. I accept that it was sold before they moved back to NSW.
Item 33
The bank account of the husband’s father is not a matrimonial asset. At its highest, the evidence of the wife is suspicion that the husband asked his father to hold money for him.

Proposed Addbacks omitted

Item 34
The costs associated with the wife going into voluntary bankruptcy are monies expended.
The decision to become bankrupt taken by the wife will be taken into account around assessment of conduct and contributions.
Item 36
The P Town property was sold for $785,000 in 2015. The net proceeds of sale ($256,834) have been diminished by legitimate application to expenses arising through Matthews Pty Ltd of which both parties are shareholders. What remains of the sale proceeds is within Item 1.
Item 37 and 38
I accept that the debts to the Australian Taxation Office (“ATO”) have been paid and the company incurring the debts deregistered.
Item 39
The business asset was sold for its value at that time, namely $150,000 (Item 4). That it could have sold for more, trained differently, is irrelevant speculation.
Item 40
The truck is with the wife (Item 5).
Item 41
The Court does not have jurisdiction to award common law damages even assuming there was relevant evidence.
Item 42
Each party will pay his/her own fees unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
Item 44
Property sold during the marriage. Subsequent increase in value irrelevant.
Items 45 and 46
Living expenses.
Items 47-49
These items do not relate to an asset or liability.

Liabilities

Items 50-54
Personal debts of the husband.
Item 56
Loan applies to assets not included.
Items 57-60
No evidentiary basis for inclusion.
Item 61
Personal debt of the wife.

Superannuation

Items 63 and 65
Funds do not exist.

Financial Resources

Item 67
No evidence.
Items 68 and 69
Accepted as personal loans for costs.

Amended Balance Sheet

The Amended Balance Sheet is as follows:

Ownership		Description	Value
Item
1.	J	Balance of sale proceeds	124,428
2.	H	BX Bank Savings	186
4.	W	Proceeds of sale of Business asset 1	150,000
5.	W	Truck	130,000
6.	W	NZ corporation shareholding	E444,424
7.	W	Company W NZ	E316,860
8.	W	Company W USA	E223,984
9.	W	BH Bank Bank	562
16.	W	375 shares	E2,231
19.	W	Motor vehicle 1	E11,990
Total		$1,404,665

ADDBACKS
35.	W	AZ Bank Accounts with base number …33 (10 x term deposits and 2 x bank accounts)	E196,053
43.	H	Motor vehicle 2	8,000
Total		$204,053

LIABILITIES
55.	J	Australian corporation Matthews Pty Ltd ACN … – value of shareholding – negative value – liabilities (NAB loans of $646,402) exceed assets	E224,000
Total		$224,000

SUPERANNUATION
Member		Name of Fund	Type of Interest	Value
62.	J	N Pty Ltd as trustee for the Matthews Superannuation Fund	Accumulation	451,929
64.	H	Superfund 2	Accumulation	19,025
66.	W	Superfund 5	81,820
Total		$552,774

2. Would it be just and equitable to make an adjustment to interests in property

The parties have been separated for almost five years. They are divorced and wish to put an end to the financial relationship between themselves.
It would be just and equitable to sever joint interests and make an adjustment to reflect contributions and future needs if appropriate.

3. Consideration of ss 79(4) and 75(2) of the Act in order to come to a just and equitable adjustment

Contributions under section 79(4)

Initial Contributions

When they began living together in 2008 both parties were in full-time employment. They had the following assets and liabilities:
The husband:
·Interests in superannuation with Superfund 3 of $102,241 and Superfund 4 Super of $30,242;
·Shares in Superfund 4 Investments worth $22,976 and BR Bank worth $12,486;
·Shared assets with his former wife including their family home in Suburb BT, a suburb of Newcastle.
The wife:
·The wife was the sole director of two companies in New Zealand; Company W NZ which had bought a property in HH Town, New Zealand and Company AA NZ which bought the property at JJ Street, City BB, New Zealand, incorporating a hospitality business;
·Some shares estimated at $30,000; and
·Cash of about $20,000.

Contributions during the marriage and to date of trial

The parties lived in an apartment rented by the husband for the first few months of their relationship.
From 29 September 2008 to 10 June 2009 the husband states, and the wife concedes, that he transferred to her or to third parties for her benefit, monies totalling $485,144.
In March 2009 the parties purchased, in the sole name of the wife, the Suburb F property for $842,500. The purchase was financed by bank loan of $758,250 and cash. The funds provided by the husband were then applied by the wife to reduction of the mortgage.
The Suburb F property was the family home for the parties until they moved to WA after which it was leased. The P Town property became the family home until separation.
The parties together invested in property in Western Australia and Tasmania which proved to be an unprofitable exercise. Losses were incurred.
Both parties worked in a variety of positions. Both cared for the child after she was born in 2010 consistent with each other’s work obligations.
Both parties studied and obtained further qualifications.
The wife maintained her New Zealand and American interests through her companies throughout the relationship. She probably developed and enhanced the values of those assets. That is unclear.
When the marriage ended in 2015 the parties briefly repartnered and have fought furiously since.
The assets of the wife were not brought into any arrangement to the joint benefit of the parties. The husband made no contribution to the acquisition of the New Zealand properties. He may have made an indirect contribution to the property in America acquired by the wife’s US corporation, it is unclear.
The husband was left to contend with loss making property investment and debts. The wife resigned as a director of Matthews Pty Ltd, the parties’ company, and walked away from its management.
The wife chose to enter voluntary bankruptcy. The costs of the Trustee in Bankruptcy were $102,165. Debts to creditors were comparatively modest. The wife’s only explanation for the decision she made in that regard was that it was done on advice.
Overall the contributions during the marriage favour the husband.

Relevant factors under section 75(2)

The relevant matters to be taken into account are as follows.

The age and state of health of each of the parties

The husband is aged 51 years. There is no evidence to suggest that he is other than healthy.
The wife is 46 years. She asserted that the husband had broken her back on 1 August 2015 during the incident which gave rise to final separation. The husband denies doing more than grappling with the wife over car keys causing her to suffer hand lacerations.
The basis for the assault charge was that the husband prised the wife’s fingers off the car keys which she had removed moments before from the ignition of the car that the husband was using.
The wife alleges that the assault on her caused permanent back injuries. The husband denies that he caused the wife to have a permanent back injury and that her back is broken. The husband alleges that immediately after the incident the wife played sport.
Further, the hearing of the assault charge in the Local Court was adjourned to November 2015 to enable the wife to compete in a sports event in South Australia. I accept that playing sports in that way is inconsistent with a broken back.
The evidence of the wife herself is that she continued in her paid employment for 16 months after the incident.
In November 2015 the wife took the parties’ child to the Gold Coast and then flew to South Australia presumably for the sports event.[18]
[18] Affidavit of the wife filed 14/06/2019, para 60.
In 2016 the wife and Mr West took the child skiing, and to the Whitsunday Islands. The wife taught the child to ice skate.[19]
[19] Affidavit of the wife filed 14/06/2019, para 61.
There is no medical evidence before me to establish that the wife has injuries arising from such an incident, or at all.
There is medical evidence that the wife’s back was not broken, namely an x-ray of the wife’s lumbosacral spine taken two days after the incident.[20] There is a positive statement “No fracture is evident” in the report.
[20] Affidavit of the husband filed 18/06/2019, Annexure A38.
The wife has the majority care of a child under three. There is no other impediment to her re-entering the paid workforce.

The income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment

Both parties have the physical, mental and academic qualifications to engage in gainful employment.
The husband is a general manager earning about $140,000 per year.
The wife disclosed no income other than New Zealand Government benefits of $620 per week, “Jobseeker including medical and sole parent support”.[21]
[21] Financial Statement of the wife filed 14/06/2020, para 12.
The wife did not disclose income from her American company, Company W LLC. The wife made a reference to her two New Zealand companies as debts or loan advances greatly exceeding asset value.[22]
[22] Financial Statement of the wife filed 14/06/2020, para 41.
At least after the wife’s younger child, Z, starts school, if not before, the wife will be able to re-enter the workforce.
Some adjustment is made for the current disparity in income between the parties but balanced by undisclosed levels of income received by the wife from the units in the JJ Street property in which she lives.

Whether either party has the care or control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years

The husband has the full-time care of the parties’ nine year old child.
The wife has the majority care of her younger child who turns three years in August 2020.

Commitments of each of the parties that are necessary to enable the party to support: (i) himself or herself; and (ii) a child or another person that the party has a duty to maintain

The husband has the commitment to full-time employment to support himself and the parties’ child.
The wife has no disclosed commitments but does have a child from a subsequent relationship in her care.

Subject to s 75(2)(3), the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under: (i) any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or Territory or of another country; or (ii) any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was established, or operates, within or outside Australia; and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party

The wife asserts that she does not receive child support for Z, that Mr West does pay child support to the New Zealand Government for Z but “My benefit is not affected whether he pays or not.”[23]
[23] Affidavit of the wife filed 14/06/2019, para 134.
The parties have interests in superannuation. In the Joint Balance Sheet the following interests are listed:
Joint
Matthews Super Fund (N Trustee) - $451,929
Husband
Superfund 2 – $19,025 (updated from Financial Statement)
Wife
Company PP - NIL
Superfund 5 - $81,820
The husband provided statements to the wife. The wife did not provide statements to the husband on the basis that her superannuation should not form part of the property pool.[24]
[24] Wife’s note 66 to Exhibit 3.
Accordingly, the Court does not know the value of the wife’s interests in her own fund.

Where the parties have separated or divorced, a standard of living that in all the circumstances is reasonable

The husband is living and working in Melbourne and maintaining a standard of living commensurate with the marriage. He is living in a rented property.
The wife returned to live in her property in New Zealand.
She is living in one of the nine units which constitute the JJ Street property, owned by one of her New Zealand corporations – Company AA NZ, a company of which she is the sole director.
The wife provided no information about the leasing arrangement for the other eight units. The husband was unable to discover how much rent is earned from the other units nor who receives the rent.
Such evidence as the husband was able to provide reveals that there is equity of between AUS$264,380 and AUS$444,424 in the property.
The property was purchased for $900,000 in 2007. Consent to subdivide the property was granted in 2016.
The wife resisted discovery and valuation. She claims that debt exceeds equity, and repeats her mantra that the property should not be taken into account.
The wife cannot then be heard to complain if the Court assumes that the wife lives rent free, although paying off debt on the property, that she probably receives rental income for that purpose and that in future she could undertake a profitable subdivision.
The wife is not in paid employment but has a reasonable standard of living in a secure arrangement.

The extent to which the payment of maintenance to the party whose maintenance is under consideration would increase the earning capacity of that party by enabling that party to undertake a course of education or training or to establish himself or herself in a business or otherwise to obtain an adequate income

The wife again sought spouse maintenance as she has done in the past without success.
The financial position of the wife as outlined in these reasons is not clear by her own decision.
What is known is that she has assets owned by companies in New Zealand and the United States of America. She has hidden money from the sale of Business asset 1. She has been deceptive about the whereabouts of an asset, the truck, and the sale of Business asset 1.
She is qualified to work but is not working. She receives government benefits.
The evidence does not support a finding that the wife is unable to support herself adequately.

The effect of any proposed order on the ability of a creditor of a party to recover the creditor's debt, so far as that effect is relevant

The wife was a bankrupt for a period but has been discharged with debts paid.

The extent to which the party whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other party

The parties both worked hard during the seven years of the relationship.
They both had periods of unemployment.

The duration of the marriage and the extent to which it has affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration

Duration of the relationship

The parties agree that they met in mid-2008 in WA on a site where they were both working. There is no dispute that they were married on … 2009. The only child of the relationship was born late in 2010. A divorce was granted in New Zealand in … 2018.
The parties disagree about when their relationship began and ended.
The husband asserted, whilst conceding regular interstate travel for both parties for work, that the parties began to live together in September 2008 in an apartment in Suburb CN NSW, rented by him.
The wife asserts that the parties lived and worked independently of each other and only began living together after August 2009 when the parties married.
The documentary evidence supports the husband.
An ASIC document dated in September 2008 reveals that a company, LL Pty Ltd, of which the wife was the director and secretary, gave as its principal place of business the Suburb CN address. That address was also reported in the document as the address of the wife.[25]
[25] Affidavit of the husband filed 18/06/2019, Annexure WJM1.
There was a Timber Pest Inspection Report[26] dated 25 November 2008 in respect of a property under consideration for purchase addressed to the wife at the Suburb CN address.
[26] Affidavit of the husband filed 18/06/2019, Annexure WJM2.
Tendered into evidence by the wife was a communication with her uncle dated 28 September 2008 referring to herself and the husband “… we’ll see you in a couple of days.”[27]
[27] Exhibit 8.
I conclude that the parties established a common residence in September 2008 and were together as a couple although very often physically apart.
The husband asserts that the parties finally separated in August 2015.
The wife states that the parties had short periods of separation during the marriage but finally separated on 4 May 2014 in WA after an incident between them at a restaurant. The wife asserts that thereafter they were separated but continued to live under the one roof.
It is an agreed fact that in March 2015 the parties and their daughter moved together back to NSW onto a property at P Town NSW owned by the husband.
I conclude that the marriage was in trouble before the parties moved back from WA. The wife had sought legal advice in Perth WA but chose to move back together with the husband to NSW. Depending who had work, they each cared for their child by mutual agreement.
It is an agreed fact that on 1 August 2015 the husband moved away from the property after an incident which involved physical conflict and which gave rise to the husband being charged with common assault. The offence was proved but did not proceed to conviction. An ADVO was put in place for 12 months.
Physical separation as partners, parents and companions ended irrevocably on 1 August 2015.
Accordingly, I conclude that the relationship between the parties, with all its challenges, endured for seven years between September 2008 and August 2015.

The need to protect a party who wishes to continue that party's role as a parent

It is the present intention of the husband to continue to care for and provide for the parties’ child on a full-time basis.

If either party is cohabiting with another person - the financial circumstances relating to the cohabitation

There is no evidence of cohabitation by either party with a new partner.

Any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided, is to provide, or might be liable to provide in the future, for a child of the marriage

From separation in August 2015 until February 2017 the child of the marriage lived with the wife. The husband paid child support post-separation.
Since February 2017 the child has lived with the husband. The wife has paid some child support. However she discloses no income and is the beneficiary of government support in New Zealand. The wife describes herself as unable to work. Accordingly on the balance of probabilities the wife is unlikely to pay any, or at best minimal, child support in future.

It is a matter I take into account in favour of the husband.

Any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account

The wife brazenly failed to make disclosure of her financial position.
The wife has taken the unwavering stance that the property proceedings should have been heard in New Zealand and that certain assets owned by her should be excluded from consideration.
This defiant attitude to her legal obligation to disclose her financial position, all assets and liabilities, made the task of the legal representatives for the husband hugely and unnecessarily onerous and costly.

Analysis

The wife retained her overseas assets throughout the relationship. She received whatever benefit those assets delivered and used her income to maintain them.
The husband provided the majority of funds for the parties’ first home in Suburb F although it was purchased in the name of the wife.
When the wife decided to resign as a director of Matthews Pty Ltd she left the husband with debts to manage and properties worth less than the purchase prices. To be able to access funds to manage those assets the husband has been obliged to make relevant applications to this Court.
The wife went into voluntary bankruptcy, by choice, which cost the parties $102,165 in associated professional costs.
Both parties were engaged by the care of their child and cooperated during the marriage to enable both to work.
By the date of separation the contribution favours the husband particularly as a result of the use of the funds from his property settlement.
Post-separation the wife has worked to hide and sell assets and conceal her financial position. She was determinedly secretive about her US corporation, Company W LLC.
The Court cannot come to a fully informed conclusion.
In the circumstances the appropriate course is for the husband to retain certain items including the trust funds, the parties’ self-managed superannuation fund and receive a payment accounting for the proceeds of sale of Business asset 1 and the attributed value of the truck.
The wife will retain her three foreign companies and their assets and her Australian superannuation.
The husband has debts owed to his parents relating to legal and living costs of $250,000.

4. Analysis of whether the adjustment contemplated is just and equitable

The parties presently have the following assets and liabilities:
The husband:

2.

BX Bank Savings

186

43. Motor vehicle 2 8000

64. Superfund 2 19,025

TOTAL 27,211

The wife:

4. Proceeds of sale of Business asset 1 150,000

5. Truck 130,000

6. NZ corporation shareholding E444,424

7.

Company W NZ

E316,860

8. Company W USA E223,984

9.

BH Bank

562

16. 375 shares E2,231

19. Motor vehicle 1 E11,990

35. AZ Bank Accounts with base number …33 (10 x term deposits and 2 x bank accounts) E196,053

66. Superfund 5 81,820

TOTAL 1,557,924

There are joint assets:

1.

Balance of sale proceeds

124,428

62. N Pty Ltd as trustee for the Matthews Superannuation Fund 451,929

TOTAL $576,357

There are joint liabilities:

55. Australian corporation Matthews Pty Ltd ACN … – value of shareholding – negative value – liabilities (NAB loans of $646,402) exceed assets E224,000

TOTAL $224,000

The husband should retain the items in his possession, the joint assets and the joint liabilities.
Assets in possession (Items 2, 43, 64)  $27,211
Joint assets (Items 1, 2)   $576,357
Total   $603,638
Less joint liabilities (Item 55)  $224,000
TOTAL   $379,568
The wife should retain the assets in her possession and those brought back into account, less an adjustment in favour of the husband
Assets in possession (Items 4-9 incl, 16, 19, 35, 66) $1,557,924
Total net assets $1,937,492
There should be a payment of $589,178 to the husband by the wife to achieve an outcome approximating an equal division of net assets.
I am satisfied that the adjustment proposed is as just and equitable as possible given the circumstances of the case.
Costs
The husband is indebted personally to his father and aunt through borrowing for legal costs. I accept the evidence that he has borrowed $250,623 in total. I have not included those debts in the matrimonial pool. They have been incurred over the whole course of these proceedings
There will be an order for any cost application to be made within 28 days of the date of judgment.

Parenting

By her Amended Response, the wife filed a fresh application for parenting orders in respect of arrangements for the parties’ child. In relation to this application the parties are referred to hereinafter as “the mother” and “the father”.
The orders sought are similar to the orders sought in the Amended Response of 31 March 2017 which went forward for the trial in June 2017.
In summary the mother proposes sole parental responsibility for herself and residence for the child in New Zealand with her. In the event that the child asked to spend time with the father that would be supervised time in New Zealand.
This Court declined to permit a further trial of parenting issues unless there was credible evidence of a change of circumstances, or some new factor arising since the 2017 parenting orders, to justify further Court proceedings.
The 2017 parenting orders not only provided for the father to have sole parental responsibility or the child and for the child to live with him, there was this explicit notation:
These orders intentionally make no provision for the child to spend time or communicate with the mother. If, when, and how the child may do so are decisions the father shall make as an incident of his sole parental responsibility for the child.
The reasons for judgment refer to the mother declaring that she would sever ties with the child if she lived with the father and of giving the child (then aged six years) a letter informing her of that intention.[28]
[28] Matthews & Norris (No. 3) [2017] FamCA 461, pars [90] & [91].
There is also a reference to the mother’s capacity:
Her own psychiatrist suspects she has a personality disorder, which condition she will need to manage carefully, but her parenting capacity should not be unduly impaired if she does so. She can capably participate in the child’s life if her views and perceptions remain balanced.[29]
[29] Matthews & Norris (No. 3) [2017] FamCA 461, par [83].
A direction was made for submissions on the threshold issue of change of circumstances following the principle in Rice v Asplund.

The Evidence

The documents relied on in respect of the application were as follows:

The Wife/Mother

(a)Oral Submissions on 20 November 2019 (in part);
(b)Continuation of Submissions – written;[30]
(c)Written submissions (in total);[31]

The Husband/Father – in response
(d)Written submissions.[32]

[30] Exhibit 46.

[31] Exhibit 45.

[32] Exhibit 47.

The Mother

To the extent that the mother included evidence relating to events taken into account at trial in June 2017 in her trial affidavit for this trial, I have read and disregarded that evidence.
The submissions of the mother clearly reveal her knowledge that only new factors, or matters from the past undisclosed for explicable reasons, would justify further litigation.
The mother raises fifteen points:
Of those, some are irrelevant:
(i)That the mother abandoned her appeal against the 2017 orders, whatever the reason was;
(ii)That the father moved interstate with the child. He had unfettered sole parental responsibility so that decision was open to him;
(iii)That the applicant states, in an earlier affidavit, he was struggling to provide a safe environment for the child.
Some are unsupported assertions by or opinions of the wife without any basis:
(iv)“new evidence” that the father broke the mother’s back in August 2015 is not evidence at all. There was no new medical evidence to support that assertion;
(v)“new evidence” that the father tried to kill the mother and child; allegations that the father broke into the mother and child’s home are no more than assertions by the mother;
(vi)That the father is subjecting the child to immense psychological abuse and continued family violence upon the mother and the child;
(vii)That the affidavit of the father “proves the constant stalking of the mother”.
Some are complaints:
(viii)That there has been no arrangement for face to face to time which the father considers to be in the best interests of the child or that the mother considers affordable or justifiable;
- The mother has either not accepted or has not understood that the father has complete discretion over time for the child with the mother, whether it occurs at all and, if it does, the circumstances of how that takes place.
(ix)That the child has not been permitted to travel to New Zealand to see the maternal family as well as the mother;
(x)That the mother has travelled to Australia and been unable to see the child.
Some are misconceptions:
(xi)That the “judge recused himself due to bias shown particularly in his decision of the parenting matter”;
- His Honour recused himself in June 2018 having heard many more applications involving these parties since the trial 12 months prior to the date of recusal. On the day of recusal there were five outstanding applications to be heard.
(xii)That the trial judge made his decision based on being persuaded that the father would facilitate the relationship between the child and the mother;
- The decision was in no way conditional. The judge accepted that the father did not consider that the mother severing ties with the child was a good outcome.

The Father

Submissions for the father were succinct. Counsel reminded the Court of a secret recording made by the mother of a conversation between the father and herself which the mother sought to tender into evidence and later agreed to its tender by the father.
The mother appears to be angry and unfocused. She is heard to say “I know B will come back to me one day and I know she will hate you one day.”
It was evidence of there having been no change in the parental dynamic.
There was no evidence of the “careful management of a personality disorder” as referred to by the mother’s psychiatrist in the parenting trial.

Conclusion

I am satisfied that there is no new evidence, no fresh event or matter left out of the trial which would justify any further exploration of parenting arrangements for the child. Further that it would not be in the best interests of the child for there to be any further litigation unless there was in future a real and relevant change of circumstances.
An order is made accordingly for the dismissal of parenting orders sought by the mother.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and eighty two (382) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 9 July 2020.

Associate:

Date: 9 July 2020

2.	BX Bank Savings	186
43.	Motor vehicle 2	8000
64.	Superfund 2	19,025
TOTAL		27,211