MEREDITH & ALLEN

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEREDITH & ALLEN

[2014] FamCA 376

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – consideration of the assets and liabilities of the parties – the use of monies received by the wife – contributions and s79(4)(d)-(g) matters – determination of what was a just and equitable property settlement

FAMILY LAW – CHILD MAINTENANCE – adult child maintenance – physical disability – where lump sum adult child maintenance sought – where orders made for periodic payments of adult child maintenance

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600

APPLICANT:

Mr Meredith

RESPONDENT:

Ms Allen

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

6886

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

6 June 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Watts J

HEARING DATE:

3 - 4 December 2013; 23 December 2013

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Litigant in person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Richards

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Coleman & Greig

Orders

Pursuant to s 79 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) an order be made in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 15 below.
Within 42 days, the husband shall do all such things as may be necessary to:
2.1.Withdraw the caveat lodged by the husband and registered against the Suburb S property; and
2.2.Discharge the mortgage to St George Bank Limited secured against the Suburb S property; and
2.3.Pay to the wife the sum of $256,144.
Simultaneously with the husband’s compliance with order 2, the wife do all acts and things and sign and execute all documents necessary to transfer to the husband any right, title and interest which she may have in the property situated at and known as E Street, Suburb S in the State of New South Wales being all of the land comprised on Folio Identifiers … (“the Suburb S property”) and the wife transfer to the husband any right, title and interest in the bond held by Suburb S Municipal Council. The husband is to be responsible for the payment of stamp duty (if any) in respect of the transfer of the Suburb S property.
In the event the husband fails to comply with order 3 hereof within 42 days of the date of these orders the wife shall do all such things as may be necessary to list the Suburb S property for sale by auction and to sell the Suburb S property for the best price reasonably obtainable and upon the following terms and conditions:
4.1.The auction shall take place within six weeks after 42 days from the date of these orders or as soon as practicable, whichever is the later.
4.2.The wife shall attend at the auction and in the event that the Suburb S property is passed in the wife shall negotiate with the highest bidder and shall accept any offer to purchase the Suburb S property at no less than 90 per cent of the reserve price.
4.3.In the event that the Suburb S property does not sell at auction or does not sell by private treaty within two weeks after the date of the auction then the wife shall relist the Suburb S property for sale by auction at intervals of no more than six weeks upon the same terms and conditions as set out herein until the Suburb S property is sold.
Upon the Suburb S property being sold at auction the wife shall distribute the proceeds of such sale as follows:
5.1.In payment of real estate agent’s commission and expenses on the sale;
5.2.In payment of property legal costs and disbursements of each of the parties of and incidental to the sale;
5.3.Payment of an amount to St George Bank Limited in respect of loans secured over the Suburb S property in an amount calculated to be sufficient to extinguish those loans had all regular payments been made to the date of settlement in respect of those loans;
5.4.Payment to the wife of 45 per cent of the remaining balance;
5.5.Payment of all arrears of the mortgage to St George Bank Ltd;
5.6.In adjustment of rates, levies and taxes on the Suburb S property so that all outgoings are paid to the date of settlement;
5.7.Payment to the wife of any arrears of adult child maintenance for B;
5.8.In payment of the balance then remaining to the husband; and
the husband shall simultaneously withdraw the caveat registered by him against the Suburb S property and the parties do all things and sign all necessary documents to release the bond held by Suburb

S Municipal Council in relation to the Suburb S property to the husband.
Pending the sale of the Suburb S property pursuant to orders 4 and 5 hereof the husband shall:
6.1.Be solely responsible for all regular mortgage repayments and all regular payments on any loans secured against the Suburb S property, rates, taxes and other outgoings associated with the Suburb S property and the husband shall indemnify the wife and keep her indemnified with respect to all such mortgage repayments, rates, taxes and outgoings and any arrears of these liabilities pending the sale of the Suburb S property;
6.2.Vacate and shall cause any other occupants to vacate the Suburb S property at a date agreed in writing between the parties and failing agreement, no later than two weeks prior to any proposed date of settlement of the sale of the Suburb S property, leaving the property in its current state of repair and condition;
6.3.Do all such things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to facilitate the sale of the Suburb S property by the wife within seven days of receiving a request from the wife to do such things or sign such documents including but not limited to:
6.3.1.Facilitate the discharge of the mortgage to St George Bank Limited secured against the Suburb S property;
6.3.2.Causing the caveat registered by the husband against the Suburb S property to be withdrawn, at the husband’s expense.
6.4.Be and is hereby restrained from placing a bid at the auction of the Suburb S property.
The husband shall forthwith relinquish any right title and interest in the following, including but not limited to payment of any dividends:
7.1.Meredith Pty Limited ACN …; and
7.2.A Pty Limited ACN …
and the wife shall simultaneously indemnify the husband and keep him indemnified in relation to all liabilities whatsoever and howsoever arising with respect to the above named entities.
The husband and the wife forthwith shall do all things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to resign as a trustee from the Meredith Superannuation Fund, furthermore the wife shall relinquish any right, title and interest to Meredith Superannuation Fund (the Fund) or its accumulated balance and the wife shall do all things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to facilitate the transfer of Lot 1 SP No. …5. The husband is to indemnify the wife in relation to any taxes or stamp duty (if any) owed by the Fund or arising from this order.
Pursuant to s 90MT(1)(b) of the Act, whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the interest held by the wife in the Meredith Superannuation Fund, the husband shall be entitled to be paid 100 per cent of that splittable payment and that there be a corresponding reduction to the entitlement the wife would have received in the Meredith Superannuation Fund but for this order.
The husband and wife shall do all such acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary to give effect to the preceding order.
The orders in relation to superannuation are to have effect from the operative time, being the date of these orders.
The wife forthwith shall relinquish any right, title and interest in the husband’s interest in the following:
12.1.H Pty Limited ACN …;
12.2.P Pty Limited ACN …;
12.3.Q Pty Limited ACN …;
12.4.R Pty Limited ACN …;
12.5.T Limited ACN …;
12.6.Meredith Family Trust; and
12.7.Meredith Family Trust No. 2
and the husband shall simultaneously indemnify the wife and keep her indemnified in relation to all liabilities whatsoever and howsoever arising with respect to the above named entities.
Each party do all things and sign all necessary documents to cause any company or entity they control to release the other party from any liability which that other party owes that company or entity and each party will indemnify the other in respect of any debt the other party allegedly owes any company or entity which is controlled by that party.
Subject to these orders, each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all other property, chattels and superannuation in their respective names or possession as at the date of these orders and that each party indemnify the other in relation to any debt associated with any asset that is kept by each of them respectively.
Each party do all things and sign all necessary documents to give effect to these orders.
If either party refuses or neglects to sign (within fourteen (14) days of a written request to do so) any documents necessary to effect the terms of these Orders, the Registrar of the Sydney Registry of the Family Court of Australia is hereby appointed pursuant to the provisions of Section 106A of the Family Law Act to execute such documents on behalf of such party.
Either party have liberty on 14 days notice to make application for an order implementing these orders.
Pursuant to s 66G Family Law Act 1975 the husband shall pay to the wife by way of adult child maintenance in respect of the child B born … 1995 the sum of $199 per week, the first such sum payable from 1 January 2014 and any arrears shall be charged against the Suburb S property.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6886 of 2008

Mr Meredith

Applicant

And

Ms Allen

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The parties have been unable to agree on alteration of their interests in property. The parties have been involved in an unseemly amount of litigation between companies which are the alter ego of one or other of them. The husband had a company that he controls, sue in a State court two companies the wife controlled, and lost the case incurring a costs order against the husband’s company. A liquidator was appointed for two of the companies that the wife controls. The liquidator was involved in these proceedings. Each party blames the other for monies lost since the separation in either unwarranted litigation or the management and disposal of assets.

APPLICATIONS

During final submissions, the husband who is unrepresented, having been given several opportunities, declined to indicate his view about a just and equitable percentage division of the existing pool of net assets, contenting himself by saying that he would leave it up to the court to make an order that was just and equitable. In his financial questionnaire, the husband indicated that he wanted a 50/50 division of assets. The last formal set of orders that the husband sought is set out in Schedule 1.
During the final day of the hearing it was agreed that as part of the adjustment of assets, the husband would take control and ownership of the Meredith Superannuation Fund. This will involve making a 100 per cent splitting order of the wife’s interest in the Meredith Superannuation Fund in favour of the husband. The assets of the private superannuation fund are an overseas bank account and an interest in a car parking space which has associated with it an outstanding debt owed by the person who uses that space.
The wife in final submissions indicated that her view was that a just and equitable division of property would be for her to receive 85 per cent and the husband to receive 15 per cent. This view was calculated upon the basis that the wife would receive a 70/30 adjustment in her favour based upon contributions, and a further 15 per cent adjustment for s 79(4)(d)-(g) matters. The wife’s formal application is set out at Schedule 2. In addition, the wife wanted an adult child maintenance order to be made in her favour in relation to the child of the parties, B, aged 18 who has a severe disability. She sought that that maintenance order be made as a lump sum in the amount of $100,000.

CREDIT

I found the wife to be a more straightforward witness than the husband in the way that she answered questions but neither of the parties’ credit was substantially impugned during cross examination. The only major issue where the parties’ credit was important related to the assertion by the wife and the wife’s mother that substantial funds had been invested at the time of the improvements to the Suburb S property by the wife’s parents from funds obtained as a result of a sale of a residence by the wife’s parents. I find it is likely that some contribution was made by the wife’s parents that was more than the stamp duty as asserted by the husband, but I am not in a position to make any objective finding as to what these transactions were as the wife concedes there is no documentary evidence one way or the other.

CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT EVENTS

The husband was born in 1964 and is 50 years of age and the wife was born in 1966 and is 48 years of age.
About six months before cohabitation the husband purchased the property at U Street, Suburb V (“the Suburb V property”). The wife says the shortfall between rental income and mortgage repayments were met by the parties jointly from their respective income but the husband asserts he met all outgoings not covered by rent.
The parties commenced cohabitation in November 1984.
In November 1985 or March 1986 the parties purchased the property at X Street, Suburb W (“the Suburb W property”) as joint tenants. The deposit and household expenditure, including mortgage repayments, were met from their joint incomes. The husband says the wife did not contribute to the deposit and that the collateral was provided by the Suburb V property.
In or about 1987 the Suburb W property was sold and the parties relocated to Cairns, originally residing at accommodation owned by the husband’s father.
In 1988 or early 1989 the parties jointly purchased the property situated at Y Street, Town Z, Queensland (“the Town Z Queensland property”). The deposit was paid from the net proceeds of sale of the Suburb W property and the husband says the remaining $5,000 was bequeathed from his grandmother. Both parties contributed to mortgage repayments and household expenditure.
The parties married in September 1989. Around this time the husband was granted a property industry license in Queensland.
In either 1990 or 1991 the parties established Business AB.
In October 1991 Meredith Pty Limited was incorporated. The husband and wife were appointed as the directors and shareholders and the husband appointed as secretary. The husband says the company was incorporated to act as tenant in a license agreement for the fully fitted out business in “BB” shopping centre, Cairns. At this time the wife’s parents moved into the Town Z Queensland property with the parties and assisted the parties in operating Business AB.
The parties’ first child CC was born in 1991.
In 1993 the husband asserts that the parties bought a house in Town DD, Queensland in the wife’s parent’s names. The wife’s parents then moved out of the parties’ home and into their home at Town DD.
Business AB ceased trading in 1993 after a rental dispute with the owners of BB shopping centre regarding rental and lease conditions. At this time, the landlord of BB shopping centre (Company EE) commenced proceedings against Meredith Pty Limited for non-performance.
In or about 1994 the wife’s parents sold their house in FF Street, Town DD, Queensland and the husband asserts they “doubled their money”. The wife’s parents then moved back into the parties’ home.
In 1995 the parties’ second child B was born. B was subsequently diagnosed with Rett Syndrome.
In 1996 the husband, wife, CC and B relocated to Brisbane to enable the parties to live closer to the necessary medical facilities for B.
The parties moved back to Sydney in July 1998. The tenants of the Suburb V property vacated that property and the parties and children moved into that property.
In 1998 the parties’ third child J was born.
In February 2000 the Suburb V property was sold.
In June 2000 Meredith Pty Limited used the net proceeds of sale from the Suburb V property and entered into a Management Rights Agreement for the purchase of management rights of the property at HH Street, Suburb S (“the HH Street property”), and contracts to purchase Unit 2 (an office) and Unit 3 (a three bedroom apartment) situated at that property.
H Pty Limited was incorporated in September 2001 and the husband was appointed the sole director, secretary and shareholder. IJ Pty Limited was also incorporated on the same date and the husband was appointed the sole director, secretary and shareholder. (The company remained inactive until 2003.)
A Pty Limited was also incorporated in September 2001 and the husband was appointed the sole director, secretary and shareholder of the company. The company was established to conduct the cleaning and maintenance work in properties managed by Meredith Pty Limited.
In or about 2001 the Meredith Superannuation Fund was incorporated and the parties were each made beneficiaries and trustees.
In March 2002 P Pty Limited was incorporated and the husband was appointed the sole director, secretary and shareholder.
The parties’ fourth child JJ was born in 2002.
In either 2002 or early 2003, P Pty Limited purchased the management rights for the property situated at KK Street, Suburb LL (“The Suburb LL Property”), for a period of 5 years with a 5 year option.
In 2001 the Meredith Superannuation fund purchased strata title in a car park space for $15,000.
In mid-2003 or November 2004 the Town Z Queensland property was sold.
In November 2003 IJ Pty Limited was appointed as the Corporate Trustee of the Meredith Family Trust.
In or about 2004 the Caretaking Agreement (Meredith Pty Limited being the caretaker) with respect to the HH Street property was terminated by the then treasurer and strata manager. Meredith Pty Limited continued to carry out its role at the HH Street property however its remuneration as caretaker was withheld for some months.
In April 2004 Q Pty Limited was incorporated and the husband was appointed the sole director, secretary and shareholder. The husband has since transferred some of his shares in this company to R Pty Limited.
Also in 2004, H Pty Limited was appointed Building Manager at Building MM, Suburb NN and OO Street, Suburb PP, for no consideration, and A Pty Limited was appointed Cleaner at Building MM, Suburb NN and OO Street, Suburb PP for no consideration.
In 2005 Meredith Pty Limited commenced proceedings against the Owners Corporation of the HH Street property in the Supreme Court to recover unpaid remuneration. The matter was resolved but the dispute caused a loss for Meredith Pty Limited.
The wife purchased the property situated at E Street, Suburb S (being the former matrimonial home) (“the Suburb S property”) in August 2005, using the monies she was reimbursed as a lump sum payment of caretaker remuneration that was withheld by the Treasurer of HH Street. The parties invited the wife’s parents to reside with them at the Suburb S property. The wife asserts that an agreement was made that the wife’s parents would contribute $80,000 towards the building works on the Suburb S property and in consideration for such payment the wife’s parents would reside at the Suburb S property until their passing or if the property was sold, they were to be repaid the sum of $80,000. The husband says there was no such agreement.
In October 2005 the husband says the wife’s parents paid the stamp duty on the purchase of the Suburb S property in the amount of $26,704.

In November 2005 the parties paid $20,000 to have the dwelling on the Suburb S property demolished.
The wife says in May 2006 and the husband says May 2007, the parties, the children, and the wife’s parents moved in to the Suburb S property after the building work was completed.
In September 2007 P Pty Limited asked the owners of the Suburb LL property to enter into a further 5 year Building Management Agreement and subsequently in October 2007 P Pty Limited filed a Summons in the NSW Supreme Court seeking an order that the owners of the Suburb LL property enter into a Building Management Agreement for a further 5 years with P Pty Limited. In March 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed this application and costs were awarded against P Pty Limited.
The parties separated under the one roof in October 2008 and physically separated in April 2009 at which time the husband moved into and rented Unit 4 in the HH Street property. In or about January/February 2009 the husband ceased his office holding as director and secretary of Meredith Pty Limited and transferred to the wife his shareholding in the company. The wife was appointed sole director and shareholder of this company.
From May 2009-December 2011 the wife was solely responsible for mortgage repayments associated with the Suburb S property, and mortgage repayments associated with borrowings made to acquire the Management Rights of the HH Street property on behalf of Meredith Pty Limited.
In October 2009 the husband vacated Unit 4 and moved into the three bedroom apartment (Unit 3 of the HH Street property) owned by Meredith Pty Limited. The husband agreed to pay Meredith Pty Limited the sum of $600 by way of rent for this property however this was a verbal agreement between the parties and the wife deposes she does not recall this agreement being documented.
On 14 April 2010 the wife, via her then solicitor, received notice from R Pty Limited that each of Meredith Pty Limited and A Pty Limited owed R Pty Limited 50 per cent of the gross revenue and operating profits of each company apartment pursuant to “Agreements to Provide Consulting Services” of which the wife contends she had no knowledge.
On 23 April 2010 R Pty Limited lodged caveats against the titles to Units 2 and 3 of the HH Street property and also against the Suburb S property. The caveats with respect to the HH Street property subsequently lapsed.
On 27 April 2010 the wife says she received alleged copies of invoices from R Pty Limited to Meredith Pty Limited and A Pty Limited dated back to 1 March 2009. The wife thereafter received further invoices on a monthly basis.
On 6 May 2010 the wife says the husband notified her that he was going to withhold rental payments as a result of the husband’s payment of the costs associated with the installation of a back porch at the Suburb S property.
The wife’s parents vacated the Suburb S property in June 2010 (the husband says April 2010).
On 3 June 2010, as a result of the marketing of the Management Rights of Units 2 and 3 of the HH Street property, the wife informed the husband that he was required to vacate Unit 3 prior to 30 June 2010.
The parties’ divorce became absolute in June 2010.
On 19 June 2010 the wife says she received from the husband alleged Agreements to Provide Consulting Services between R Pty Limited and Meredith Pty Limited, and R Pty Limited and A Pty Limited.
On 22 June 2010 the wife says the husband withdrew $4,661 from the two St George Bank home loan accounts associated with the Suburb S property without the wife’s knowledge or consent. The wife deposes she had deposited this amount into the two bank accounts in order to meet upcoming mortgage repayments.
On 25 June 2010 the wife sought from the husband that the sum of $4,661 be deposited back into the mortgage account.
The husband vacated Units 2 and 3 of the HH Street property on 1 July 2010.
On 2 July 2010 the wife discovered that the husband had removed the contents of the office at Unit 2 HH Street, including records belonging to Meredith Pty Limited. He also did not return all keys to the property. The husband then rented an apartment in Suburb LL for $550 per week.
In July 2010 the husband says the wife received $439,615.14 from the owners of the HH Street property for the market review caretaker remuneration owed from 2005-2010.
On 13 September 2010 the wife says the husband transferred the sum of $150,000 from the account for Meredith Pty Limited to the account for R Pty Limited. The wife deposes she was not aware of this transaction however received a receipt from the husband for the transaction with a note reading “thank you for transferring the funds. I acknowledge receipt of same.” The wife reported this transaction to St George Bank on 17 September 2010 and the transaction was reversed.
The wife discovered contents of Unit 2 in a padlocked storage space at the HH Street property and returned a filing cabinet containing records of Meredith Pty Limited to the office (Unit 2) on 8 October 2010. The husband says the wife stole all trust account records of the various entities and the husband’s personal files.
On 9 October 2010 the husband made a verbal complaint to the office manager at the HH Street property and to the police in relation to the wife removing the filing cabinet. The wife undertook to police that she would retain the files relating to Meredith Pty Limited and would return the documents belonging to the husband.
In November 2010 R Pty Limited (the company which the husband controlled) commenced proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales against Meredith Pty Limited and proceedings in the Local Court against A Pty Limited to recover monies allegedly owing to R Pty Limited pursuant to alleged invoices and Agreements to Provide Consultancy Services referred to above. The proceedings against A Pty Limited were heard at the Local Court and dismissed with costs. R Pty Limited has never complied with this costs order. The proceedings against Meredith Pty Limited were listed for hearing however on the morning of the hearing, R Pty Limited sought to withdraw its application and the District Court dismissed the application with costs. R Pty Limited has never complied with this costs order.
On 6 January 2011 IJ Pty Limited changed its name to R Pty Limited.
In October 2011 the wife listed the Suburb S property and Unit 3 of the HH Street property for sale as she was no longer able to commit to the mortgage repayments.
The wife married Mr QQ in mid-October 2011.
In November 2011 the wife, Mr QQ and the children vacated the Suburb S property and moved into rental accommodation at Suburb RR.
The Suburb S property was listed for sale by auction in December 2011. R Pty Limited was the highest bidder on the property and contracts were exchanged with a purchase price of $1,310,000. R Pty Limited paid a deposit of $131,000 into the trust account of SS Real Estate Agents.
In January 2012 R Pty Limited did not complete the contract with respect to the Suburb S property.
In March 2012 the deposit paid by R Pty Limited of $131,000 was forfeited and released to the wife. The wife applied this sum toward legal costs, real estate agent’s commission on the sale and in discharge of personal debts.
On 6 April 2012 the wife provided the keys to the Suburb S property to the husband. The husband moved into the Suburb S property on 15 April 2012.
The Annual General Meeting with respect to the HH Street property was held on 16 April 2012. The Management Rights, Units 2 and 3 were sold by Meredith Pty Limited to the Owners Corporation of the HH Street property. The wife was not initially clear in her oral evidence as to the sale price but eventually concluded that it was $520,000 plus GST. The husband complains the wife disposed of the Management Rights at undervalue. In fact a valuation of management rights was undertaken by TT Valuers on 7 March 2012 and the value given was $520,000.
UU Liquidators was appointed as liquidator for Meredith Pty Limited and A Pty Limited on 17 April 2012. I infer that the whole of the monies payable under the contract entered into on the 16 April 2012 came under the control of the liquidator.
On 8 August 2012 the Wife, Mr QQ and children moved to new rented premises at Suburb VV.
On 30 October 2013 the following orders and notations were made at the request and with the consent of the 2^nd respondent:
1. The 2^nd respondent distribute monies which he holds in the following manner:
1.1Payment of $48,370.53 to [Ms WW]
1.2Payment of $23,916.55 to the Australian Taxation Office
1.3Payment of $6,638.68 to [Business XX]
1.4Payment of $825 to [Ms YY]
1.5Payment of $10,000 to [UU Liquidators]
1.6Payment of $700 to Mr [ZZ] for his costs
1.7Balance of funds held are to be paid into a controlled monies account with Coleman & Greig Lawyers
2. Coleman & Greig Lawyers are not to disburse those funds until further order.
3. The 2^nd respondent is discharged as a party to the proceedings.
4. The 2^nd respondent is not to take any further action in any civil litigation against [R] Pty Ltd or any other company which is controlled by either the husband or the wife in these proceedings
5. No company which is or was the alter ego of the parties (whether or not in liquidation) is to take or continue any civil proceedings against [R] Pty Ltd or any other company that is the alter ego of the parties
These orders effectively ended the liquidator’s involvement in the proceedings. My orders also meant that any costs order that the wife’s companies had against the husband’s company were not to be pursued. The court was initially told by counsel for the wife that on his instructions, Hunt & Hunt, who acted for the liquidator, did not intend to pursue the wife or her companies for the payment of legal fees. A significant part (if not all) of their legal fees were incurred as a result of Hunt & Hunt acting for the two companies that the wife controlled in defending an action against them by R Pty Limited (the company the husband controlled). R Pty Limited was unsuccessful in litigation and had a costs order made against them. A costs order in favour of A Pty Ltd was the subject of an assessment and subsequently a judgment in the Supreme Court in the sum of $24,840 (see Tab AJ, Vol 1 of 5; Exhibit 18). There was a further claim by Meredith Pty Limited in respect of District Court proceedings for $25,005 (see Tab AK, Vol 1 of 5; Exhibit 18).
On 4 December 2013, Ms Whittaker of counsel attended my court. There was initial uncertainty about whom she was acting for (whether or not it was the liquidator or Hunt & Hunt). She indicated that she had instructions from the liquidator to seek a discharge of orders 3 and 4 made 30 October 2013 so that the liquidator could assign to Hunt & Hunt the benefit of the judgment against R Pty Limited, and Hunt & Hunt would pursue R Pty Limited for costs. I indicated that any such application would need to be made formally.
When the matter came back before me on 23 December 2013, a representative of Hunt & Hunt sought to file an application seeking to become a party to the proceedings on the basis that they were a creditor of the wife’s companies. They indicated that they were owed $47,547.70. Given the opportunity that had already been extended on 4 December 2013 to file and serve an application in a timely way, leave was refused. I was left at the end of the case with no actual evidence filed by the wife in relation to the potential claim by Hunt & Hunt against her companies. I am left at the end of the day only with incomplete evidence indicating that the wife and her companies may have a debt to Hunt & Hunt which will need to be satisfied. The wife made an oral application that in the event that she or her companies have to pay Hunt & Hunt any money for legal costs, then the husband indemnify her in relation to the payment of any such amount. The potential claim seems to be in the order of $47,000 to $50,000. The husband in final submissions pointed out that it was unclear as to whether or not the whole of those costs of Hunt & Hunt related to the liquidator’s involvement with R Pty Limited.

APPROACH

In this matter my task is to:
78.1.Identify according to ordinary common law and equitable principles and then value the property, assets, financial resources and liabilities of the parties;
78.2.Determine whether it is just and equitable to make an order altering those interests and if so;
78.2.1.Identify relevant contributions and assess them;
78.2.2.Consider relevant matters referred to in Section 79(4)(d) – (g) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”);
78.3.Determine what order adjusting the property, assets and liabilities of the parties is just and equitable.

BALANCE SHEET

I set out below all the major items in contention. There are a number of bank accounts which have nominal values and other assets which have nominal values which I have not included in the balance sheet. These items have no material effect on the just and equitable alteration of property between the parties.

Assets
Item no.	Title	Description	Husband	Wife	Agreed/ Determined	Value
1	W	Meredith Pty Ltd	$465,497	$250,311	Determined	$251,219
2	W	A Pty Ltd	$0	$0	Agreed	$0
3	W	E Street, Suburb S	$1,400,000	$1,400,000	Agreed	$1,400,000
4	H	H Pty Ltd	$0	$0.00	Agreed	$0
5	H	P Pty Ltd	$0	$115,000	Determined	$0
6	H	Q Pty Ltd	$0	$0	Agreed	$0
7	H	R Pty Ltd	$6,500	$60,000	Determined	$6,500
8	T Ltd	$0	$0	Agreed	$0
9	W	Household contents	$15,000	$15,000	Agreed	$15,000
10	H	Household contents	$750	$750	Agreed	$750
11	W	Jewellery	$20,000	$2,690	Determined	$2,690
12	H	Jewellery	$5,000	$5,000	Agreed	$5,000
13	H	Honda 125cc	$1,200	$1,200	Agreed	$1,200
14	W	Suburb S Municipal Council bond	$10,350	$10,350	Agreed	$10,350
15	W	2007 Holden motor vehicle	$18,000	$18,000	Agreed	$18,000
16	W	2010 Toyota motor vehicle	$40,000	$36,000	Determined	$36,000
17	H	Make AAA sports car	$6,500	$6,500	Agreed	$6,500
18	W	Monies paid to the wife's mother	$48,370.53	$0	Determined	$48,370.53
19	H	HSBC	$19,000	$19,400	Determined	$19,400
20	J	Meredith Superannuation Fund	$36,708	$31,574	Determined	$52,726
Total assets			$1,873,705.53
Liabilities
Item no.	Title	Description	Husband	Wife	Agreed/ Determined	Value
21	J	Mortgage St George Bank – E Street, Suburb F	$828,000	$828,000	Agreed	$828,000
22	J	Debt owed by parties to Meredith Pty Ltd	$0	$0	Agreed	$0
23	Tax owed by H Pty Ltd	$0	$0	Agreed	$0
24	Tax owed by P Pty Ltd	$0.00	$0.00	Agreed	$0.00
25	Debt owed by P Pty Ltd to Mr BBB for overpaid accommodation	$0.00	$0.00	Agreed	$0.00
26	W	Commonwealth Bank mastercard	$0	$21,850	Determined	$0
27	W	Monies owed by wife to her mother, Ms WW	$0	$0	Agreed	$0
Total liabilities			$828,000
Total net assets			$1,045,705.53

Item 1

Mr CCC’s affidavit filed 28 October 2013 indicated that the balance money available for distribution was $341,672. The order made 30 October 2013, that has been referred to above, distributed $90,451. The balance that should have been deposited into the trust account pending distribution should consequently be in the sum of $251,219 ($341,670 - $90,451). During the final day of hearing, counsel for the wife indicated that the amount currently held by the liquidator was $249,389. I have got no evidence as to the fact that the amount is about $2,000 less nor any explanation as to why that might be so. I will place the figure on the balance sheet at the amount which the liquidator’s evidence indicated that he retained. The higher figure claimed by the husband relates to his contentions in relation to the asserted loss of value in Meredith Pty Limited as a result of actions by the wife. Those general contentions are dealt with later in the Reasons and are not reflected on the balance sheet.

Item 3

On the first day of the trial the parties agreed that the value of the Suburb S property would be $1,400,000. This was consistent with a valuation carried out by a single expert, Mr DDD, on 16 October 2013.
The husband in Exhibit 22 attempted to assert a new figure of $1,269,000 but there is no basis that I am aware for him to maintain that assertion and in any event I would have to give him leave to withdraw the concession that he had made earlier in the hearing. I accept the efficacy of the original agreement as to the value of $1,400,000.

Item 5

P Pty Limited is currently deregistered because the husband failed to pay fees to ASIC for its continued registration. That company had historically conducted a business of leasing approximately 15 properties that are adjacent to a service provider from the landlords who own those properties and renting them out on a short term basis to people who are clients for varying periods of time of the service provider and need to be close to the service provider on a regular basis to partake in those services. The husband described it as a good business to which he devoted approximately 21 hours a week.
During cross examination he produced the 2012 financial statements in relation to the company. The company received gross income in the 2012 financial year of $455,124. The stated expenses were $453,838. Those expenses included $73,480 in consultancy fees which went to the family trust controlled by the husband. Although he seemed uncertain about some of the personal expenses, the husband seemed to concede that some payments by the company were for his private advantage, including light and power, motor vehicle and telephone. The husband also said that travel ($4,582) and legal costs ($13,164) were entirely private.
The husband estimated that currently the income he was generating after expenses from the company was approximately $100,000 per annum.
At the commencement of the hearing the husband asserted, and it was accepted, that the business operated by P Pty Limited had an agreed value of $115,000. There is no single expert valuation in relation to P Pty Limited. Based on the most recent information I have, the company has a turnover of $355,000 per annum and the husband takes from that $100,000 per annum in income plus benefits paid by the company. He works 21 hours to do that. I have no evidence as to what remuneration should be paid for that effort by somebody with the husband’s abilities managing this business. I discussed during submissions the difficulty of double counting. If when considering the husband’s earning capacity I take into account that in 21 hours he can generate over $100,000 worth of salary and benefits through P Pty Limited, it would be a double counting to then use that income to capitalise a value for P Pty Limited. The cleanest approach is to simply treat P Pty Limited as a secure income stream for the husband and not attempt to ascribe a value to that business on the basis of the income stream. Notwithstanding the initial agreement I intend to place no value on P Pty Limited. I shall take that income into account at a later stage.
One third of the shares in P Pty Limited are held by the Meredith Superannuation Fund. By agreement, the husband is to receive the whole of the wife’s interest in that fund.

Item 7

In his financial statement of 7 March 2013, the husband indicated at item 56 that he thought the Meredith Family Trust was a financial resource which had a value of $60,000. In his updated balance sheet (exhibit 22), the husband reduced that figure to $45,000. In his oral evidence, the husband said that R Pty Limited was the trustee of the Meredith Family Trust and the trust had no assets apart from one motor vehicle worth $6,500. During his oral evidence, the husband deposed that the Meredith Family Trust no longer exists. The husband asserted that after separation the trust deed for the Meredith Family Trust was torn up and a new trust deed was prepared for the Meredith Family Trust No. 2. The Meredith Family Trust No. 2 however continued to use the same bank accounts as the first trust. I am satisfied, on the husband’s evidence, that R Pty Limited is a bare trustee for the family trust and the family trust is not a trading entity. The family trust is the owner of shares primarily in the entity that previously was conducted by P Pty Limited. I find that R Pty Limited has a value in the sum of $6,500.

Item 10

The husband indicated in his financial statement in 2011 that he had at least $5,000 of household contents. The wife on the final day was prepared to accept the husband’s assertion his household contents should be valued at $750.

Item 11

Federal Magistrate Sexton (as she then was) by way of order on 8 February 2012 made provision for the wife’s jewellery to be valued. The husband says the wife did not properly comply with that order. The husband did not cross examine the wife about this assertion. The wife unsuccessfully attempted to provide an earlier valuation during final submissions. There was a concession that the valuation that had been ordered in respect of the wife’s jewellery had not been completed. The wife’s explanation was that she told her lawyers in February 2012 that she did not have sufficient financial resources to carry out valuations. That is not a satisfactory explanation. The husband asserts the jewellery is worth $20,000 but there was no evidence at all that that might be the case. I will take into account when considering s 75(2)(o) considerations the fact that the wife has jewellery which has not been presented for valuation, but otherwise I include the wife’s jewellery on the balance sheet at the figure the wife concedes, namely, $2,690.

Item 16

In relation to the wife’s 2010 Toyota motor vehicle, the wife asserted in her financial statement the value was $32,450. During the final day of hearing, the wife amended her assertion to be an amount of $36,000. The husband on the final day of hearing asserted that he would agree to a figure of $40,000. Both parties made reference to red book valuations without them being tendered. I have no evidence as to the value of this motor vehicle apart from the admission made by the wife and I will assess the value of the motor vehicle at $36,000.

Item 18 monies paid to the wife’s mother by the liquidator

The wife’s mother in her affidavit set out documents that were provided to the liquidator of Meredith Pty Limited as a proof of debt that she had paid the company an amount of $48,370.53. The documents supporting that claim however were redacted copies of St George bank trust accounts for Meredith Pty Limited. It is uncontroversial that the liquidator paid that amount of money to the wife’s mother as part of the resolution of the liquidation of the company. That claim was not money that should have been claimed and it is an amount that I intend to count against the wife.
There is a wider issue in relation to monies paid to the wife’s mother and monies paid by the wife’s parents which I will deal with below.

Item 19: HSBC

The husband asserted that this asset was superannuation which it does not seem to be. It is owned by the husband in his personal capacity and not by the superannuation fund. It is an investment that matures after five years.
Exhibit 25 indicates that the amount put into “superannuation” (and the husband confirmed in his oral evidence that he was talking about the HSBC) was an amount of $20,000. After fees, the net amount was $19,400.

Item 20 – Meredith Superannuation Fund

The parties are both members of Meredith Superannuation Fund which is a self-managed superannuation fund.
Exhibit 34 is the financial statements and reports for the Meredith Superannuation Fund for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. The fund’s total assets comprised of Real Estate Properties (being the car parking space) valued in the financial statements at $40,000, monies in an account at the Bank of Cyprus of $12,774.55, sundry debtors of $3,000 and an income tax refund of $1,403.12. The total assets at 30 June 2012 were $57,177.67. The fund also had liabilities of $6,219 in PAYG payments and $623.24 to sundry creditors. This amounted to $50,335.43 in net assets. The husband’s evidence is that the car parking space was purchased for $15,000 and that it has tripled in value. That would mean that the value of the car parking space is $45,000, not $40,000.
The husband asserted that a person owes the fund $4,700 being three years rent of the car parking space. The shares held in P Pty Ltd have no value.
The fund also has a $5,385.26 liability to the Australian Tax Office and $1,923.70 owing to the Suburb EEE Council. Given the adjustments referred to above, the overall value of the fund is $52,126 ($50,335 + $5,000 + $4,700 - $5,385 - $1,923).
The husband and counsel for the wife agreed to a 100 per cent splitting order of the wife’s interest in the fund to the husband as part of the overall adjustment. This would leave the husband with the money in the Bank of Cyprus; the car parking space and the debt owed by the person renting the car parking space.

Item 28

The wife claims as a liability the current balance on her Commonwealth Bank MasterCard. It was said the expenses accumulated on that card were general living expenses but no persuasive reason was given as to why that amount should be brought into account when adjusting the property of the parties and I shall disregard it.

WHETHER AN ORDER ALTERING INTERESTS SHOULD BE MADE

The parties have separated and their partnership has ended. After the separation, there was no longer a continuing commitment to the mutual use of assets and a shared responsibility for liabilities. Both parties are seeking different orders under s 79 of the Act. It is my view that the balance sheet set out above demonstrates that the assets and liabilities remaining with each party are held in a way that would mean that an order should be made pursuant to s 79 of the Act.
I find that in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make an order altering property (including adjusting liabilities).

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

It is also reasonably clear that from time to time monies were moved by both parties from one entity to another without there being a precise description in records to which my attention has been drawn.
It was the wife’s contention that throughout the course of the proceedings the husband failed to disclose or has only disclosed at the hearing, substantial amounts of information relating to the husband’s financial resources and income and the extent of his asset position.
Although the cross examination of the husband identified areas in which the husband’s disclosure had been tardy or inaccurate, this was not a case where at the end of the hearing, it had been demonstrated that significant parts of the husband’s financial circumstances were obscure.
It is true however that the husband only disclosed during the final hearing the fact that he put $100,000 into a website and expected it to be a substantial source of his future income.
The husband alleged that there was a lack of financial disclosure by the wife. I am satisfied that the wife provided the husband with significant documentation (and sometimes on multiple occasions). The husband also obtained material by subpoenaing third parties. By the time of the trial, the husband had accumulated a large range of material which he assembled into five ring binders and used during his cross examination of the wife. The husband did not demonstrate that the wife had failed to provide information which she had available.

MAJOR ISSUES

Monies received by the wife

The husband relies upon the fact that the wife received three significant amounts after the separation.

Sale of management rights

The wife caused Meredith Pty Limited to sell its management rights for $520,000 plus GST. The liquidator of Meredith Pty Limited has used the funds received to pay creditors of the company (as detailed in the liquidator’s evidence). The remaining balance is an amount of $251,200 which is item 1 on the balance sheet.

Assertion by the husband that the wife sold Meredith Pty Limited for a significant amount less than it was worth

The husband claims the wife has lost a significant amount of money because she did not manage to secure a buyer at a higher price. The wife agreed that there may have been a purchaser at a higher price but said the husband had stripped out the Type BC income stream from the business. The husband on the other hand says the wife did not appropriately manage the application for approval by the body corporate of the new buyer.
I do not accept that claim. Any contract that the wife had entered into was subject to approval of the owners’ corporation and the wife was unable to obtain permission for the sale from the owners’ corporation. I place no weight on the assertion made by the husband that an alternate scheme was available to the wife to allow her to circumvent the need for approval by the owners’ corporation. No unconditional contract was entered into and there was no loss sustained as a result of any wilful or reckless conduct by the wife.

Back payment of five years underpayment under the contract

The wife received a payment of $439,000 as a result of nine months negotiation by the wife to get five years of back pay under the contract which had not been properly paid. I accept the wife’s evidence that she was primarily responsible for negotiating with the strata owners the amount of the back pay. The husband explored with the wife what she did with the $439,000, questioning how it could all be expended given that the company was otherwise trading at a profit. The wife’s explanation of that was that she was servicing other debts of the parties, to which I refer below.

The forfeited deposit

The wife received $131,000 as a result of the forfeited deposit from the sale of Suburb S.

Expenditure of monies by the wife

In an email by the wife to the husband (Annexure MA 12 to the wife’s affidavit), she sets out the monthly payments for which she was responsible. They were:

·

Home loan (Suburb S)

           $1,400

·

Land loan (Suburb S)

           $2,400

·

The Unit 2 loan (that related to the initial monies that they borrowed to buy the property management business)

           $4,100

·

The Unit 3 loan (unit at HH Street, Suburb S), less tenant payments

           $2,200

The total of those four repayments (1400 + 2400 + 4100 + 2200) is $10,100 a month. The wife asserts in the email dated 28 September 2009 to the husband that she was only receiving $8884.94 per month. The response she received from the husband on 28 September 2009 was:
Please revise your figures up from 10,100 per month to $15,000 because you forgot to factor in the personal tax you are paying on the repayments for #[3], Land & Bldg.
Welcome to my world
The evidence does not allow me to do any type of meaningful reconciliation of the monies the wife received with the monies that she expended. If the husband was correct and the wife had the responsibility to pay $15,000 a month on debt that would amount to an expenditure of $450,000 in a two and a half year period ($15,000 x 12 x 2.5). The wife was also receiving income and paying living expenses during this period. I am unable to conclude that the wife has squandered or secreted any significant funds.

Monies provided by and paid to the wife’s parents

It is the wife’s case that the wife’s parents sold a property and thereafter moved in to live with the parties in the Suburb S property. The husband agreed that he was the agent acting on the sale of the wife’s parent’s property. He denied however that any of those monies went into the Suburb S property even though the wife’s parents had come to live there. The wife asserts that $80,000 was paid from her parent’s resources to Business FFF but concedes there is no documentation to support that claim. I accept the wife’s evidence that monies were paid by the wife’s parents towards the extensions to the Suburb S property but I am unable to say how much money came from the wife’s parents.
The husband points to a document completed by the wife’s father which indicated that the wife’s parents had $70,000 in a term deposit as at 1 February 2008. That evidence is not of any particular probative value given I am unaware as to how much money the wife’s parent’s had from the sale of their property and given other evidence which indicated that the wife’s mother, by February 2008, had received a victim compensation claim.
The husband has demonstrated that the wife’s parents have received money back from the wife (in addition to the monies that the wife’s mother received from the liquidator for which I have accounted elsewhere).
There is also no dispute that the wife’s parents received the benefit of occupancy of the Suburb S property for a period of time.
On an overall basis, I am neither going to credit the wife for monies received from her parents as a contribution made on her behalf nor am I going to consider as a matter of any weight, monies which may have flowed back to the wife’s parents (apart from the amount referred to in item 18 on the balance sheet).

The husband’s assertion that the wife lost money by placing Meredith Pty Limited and A Pty Limited into voluntary liquidation (particularly as a result of then having to pay fees to the liquidator)

When the wife took over Meredith Pty Limited and A Pty Limited, they had significant cash flow problems. The wife points to the ongoing management that she was left in relation to a number of regular liabilities in respect of mortgage payments. I accept the wife’s evidence that she did the best that she could with what the husband had left her to manage. The husband has not demonstrated that the wife mismanaged the receipt of funds nor that she has in some way secreted funds. I accept that the wife has provided the husband with all the documentation that she had in her possession or control and the husband has not demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the wife has misappropriated or hidden funds. The funds that she paid to her mother are disclosed and the subject of discussion elsewhere.

Agent’s fees lost as a result of the husband bidding at the auction

I accept that due to financial pressures the wife was feeling, she decided that she would sell the Suburb S property (which she had the legal ability to do without reference to the husband). I accept the husband’s evidence that he was not fully consulted in relation to that proposed sale. The husband went to the auction and was the highest bidder and was able to put together sufficient funds to pay a deposit. Whilst the husband said he had the ability to raise sufficient finance to complete the conveyancing transaction, I find that he had no real intention of ever doing so. His primary motivation was to stop the sale. During final submissions he suggested that his conduct should be seen positively as he submits that the court would find that had the wife been successful in liquidating this asset, then the proceeds of the sale would have been used by the wife in the same way as the wife had used the receipt of the back payment under the contract and the sale monies from the sale of the Suburb S business. Whilst not accepting that submission, I find that no major loss was occasioned by his actions. The deposit monies which made their way back to the wife’s control once the husband had defaulted under the contract, were used by the wife to repatriate debt. The only real money lost by the husband’s decision to abort the sale by being the highest bidder at the auction was the loss of the commission to an agent in the sum of about $30,000 and that loss was as a result of the husband’s actions.

Monies removed from H Pty Limited by the husband

The husband accounted for monies that he withdrew from H Pty Limited. There were three amounts: $95,000; $40,000 and $20,000. The amount of $20,000 went to the HSBC account which was superannuation for the husband; the amounts of $40,000 and $95,000 made up the $131,000 that was paid by way of forfeit of deposit that went to the wife.

The husband’s sale of the Type BC income stream

The husband was cross examined in relation to various financial statements. The financial statements of H Pty Ltd for the financial years 2012 and 2011 do not clearly set out how the sale of the Type BC income stream was dealt with. The Type BC income stream was sold for $250,000 (it was actually $265,000 but the husband said there was $15,000 deduction by way of claw back for three contracts that were terminated in the payout period). Exhibit 30 is the relevant financials for H Pty Ltd. They show in 2012 $44,674.82 being the capital gain for the sale of the business, and in 2011, $50,750; that is a combined amount of $95,000. The husband gave conflicting versions during oral evidence as to whether or not part of the sale of the Type BC income stream included a component for consultancy fees or management fees. The financial statements in Exhibit 30 have management fees at $63,176.81 for 2012 and management fees for 2011 of $340,094.28. It is possible that a combination of those four figures (management fees for 2012 and 2011 and capital gain on sale of business) account for the receipt of the $250,000 by way of sale of the Type BC income stream. That is probably the best explanation I can reach on the basis of the evidence that I have. It was suggested to the husband that in addition to the receipt of the $250,000, he received management fees in 2012 through H Pty Ltd in the sum of $63,176.81. He denied he did so. I am prepared to accept his evidence about that. It is more likely that that amount is part of the money he received by way of a sale of the Type BC income stream. H Pty Ltd had no other obvious source of income.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Matters relevant to the consideration of contributions have been substantially dealt with in the chronology and discussion of major issues set out above.
The parties commenced cohabitation in November 1984.
Six months before commencement of cohabitation the husband purchased an investment property at Suburb V for about $35,000 by paying a deposit of $5,000 and borrowing the remainder. The husband consequently only had a small equity in the property at the date of cohabitation. Neither party had any significant assets at the date of cohabitation. During the marriage, the parties fulfilled traditional roles, with the husband being primarily involved in generating income for the family and the wife primarily fulfilling the primary role of homemaker and parent to the four children of the marriage, one of whom had a significant disability. The wife worked in paid employment for some time and the husband was actively involved in assisting in the children’s upbringing. From June 2000, businesses conducted under corporate structures were primarily controlled by the husband with the wife taking over the management of Meredith Pty Ltd and A Pty Ltd after separation.
In 1988, the parties’ purchased a property in Town Z, Queensland for $140,000
The parties married in 1989. The wife says that her parents’ loaned $16,000 that was paid for the wedding.
The parties established a business called “Business AB”. The wife says she initially worked in that business seven days a week, for 12 hours a day. She asserts the husband played almost no role in that business. He asserts they both operated that business.
The wife’s parents lived with the parties for a substantial period of time.
The wife says she designed the former matrimonial home and liaised with builders and the council.
The children have primarily lived with the wife since separation.
Significant monies came into the wife’s hands after separation. The wife was solely responsible for the payments of various loans from May 2009 until December 2011.
I find that direct and indirect financial and non-financial contributions made by the parties, and contributions made to the welfare of the family between the date of cohabitation and the date of separation to be equal. After the separation the wife has had the larger role to play in what I accept are onerous contributions relating to B’s day to day care (as well as her contributions to the welfare of the two younger children). The husband says that the wife should not have any adjustment made in her favour as a result of those contributions because he was ready, willing and able to participate and make those contributions but was prevented from doing so by orders which were successfully obtained by the wife. Whilst I understand that submission, my focus has to be on the contributions that have actually been made.

Taking everything into account, including the size of the pool, I assess that the wife is entitled to an adjustment in her favour of 5 per cent in respect of disparity in contributions made.

FUTURE NEEDS - SECTION 79(4)(d) - (g) MATTERS

The wife has remarried, and receives financial support from Mr QQ. The wife’s new husband has filed an affidavit but does not provide any useful financial information. The only financial information about Mr QQ is contained in the wife’s financial statement filed 22 August 2013. The wife’s financial statement indicates that the Mr QQ earns a weekly amount of $1,673 but he pays the weekly rent in the sum of $1,357.
The husband has also re-partnered but I have little information about if or how the husband’s financial circumstances are intermingled with his partner.
The husband has a significantly higher earning capacity than the wife. The husband has an earning capacity of $100,000 per annum plus other personal benefits he receives from P Pty Ltd based upon 21 hours of work a week. The husband has also developed a new website named GGG and has invested, he says, $100,000 in capital expenses in the development of that website. The aim of the website is to attract purchasers from Asian Country CD. The content of the website is written substantially in a relevant language for Country CD. The husband asserts that he has not yet earned any substantial income from that website. The website has been functioning since about September 2012. He expects it to be successful and he expects it to be a significant source of income for him in the future. Disclosure in relation to this asset was really only made during the hearing. I accept the husband’s evidence that he has been successful in the past in setting up businesses and expects that he will be successful in the future.
The wife on the other hand has a comparatively meagre earning capacity ($311 gross per week in a hospitality role). She also receives a carer’s allowance of $57 per week. I find that this disparity in earning capacity is a weighty matter when I consider s 75(2) factors.
At least until proceedings in the Guardianship Tribunal have concluded, it is likely the wife will have primary care of B.
As at the date of the final hearing, as a result of an impasse reached between the parties, the husband is not playing a significant role in B’s day to day management. There are currently proceedings before the Guardianship Tribunal in which the husband is seeking week about time with B. There is a family consultant’s report (which was prepared prior to B turning 18) which would contraindicate the husband’s proposals as being best for her and the mother intends to rely upon that report in the Guardianship Tribunal. The wife invites me to predict that the result of the Guardianship Tribunal proceedings will be that B will primarily remain in her care. On balance, I find that is likely. The wife in these proceedings has applied for adult child maintenance in respect of B but that application should not be decided until the result of the property application is determined (see Bevan & Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600).
As a result of the orders made by consent, she will also have primary care of J and JJ.
The husband also said in oral evidence that he had lost an amount of $25,000 which was paid to Business DE in September 2012. That money was paid by the husband in the hope of obtaining exclusive rights to a particular website that offered potential traffic from interested Country CD buyers which the husband could then on-sell in Sydney. The website provider however was unable to provide data that would give a basis for that on-selling and the husband indicated that he lost his money. The amount that was lost was paid by the husband on his credit card. There is no credit card debt claimed by the husband on the balance sheet.
I also take into account against the husband that he was unsuccessful in his application against those two companies in relation to consultancy fees under two agreements which the wife says the husband purported to enter into at a time when he had no authority to do so. I accept the wife’s evidence that she certainly was not party to those agreements. The husband signed the documents as director of both companies. The husband provided a letter of resignation of 28 January 2009. ASIC records his resignation as director on 1 February 2009. The agreement is signed somewhere between those two dates.
Reference has been made above to the possible claim against the wife by Hunt & Hunt in the approximate sum of between $47,000 and $50,000. This debt arose as a result of legal fees incurred by the wife’s companies in successful defending claims made against it by the husband’s companies. The liquidator of the wife’s companies in effect compromised their claim in relation to R Pty Limited when orders were made on 30 October 2013. There was an unsuccessful belated attempt by Hunt & Hunt to become a party to the proceedings, having failed to take an opportunity to do so. It was suggested during the hearing that the matter could be dealt with by way of requiring the husband to give the wife an indemnity in relation to Hunt & Hunt’s costs. The downside in doing that however is the risk of a reopening of litigation between the husband and wife in relation to the circumstances surrounding Hunt & Hunt’s entitlement.
The better course is to take the wife’s potential liability to Hunt & Hunt into account in a general way pursuant to s 79(4)(e) of the Act.
The wife has paid legal costs (see the costs disclosure statement). The husband has at all times represented himself and has litigated with intensity.
As indicated earlier, I take into account the failure of the wife to have her jewellery valued.
Taking all matters that I have referred to under 75(2), I assess that there should be an adjustment in favour of the wife of 5 per cent.

JUST AND EQUITABLE

Based upon the findings made in relation to s 79(4) considerations, the overall result is an adjustment of 60/40 to the wife. The husband wishes an opportunity to retain the Suburb S property. The parties have also agreed that a splitting order will be made so that the husband will receive the wife’s interest in the Meredith Superannuation Fund. The husband also wishes the Suburb S Municipal Council bond to be transferred to him. The overall result can be achieved by distributing the assets and liabilities of the parties between them in accordance with the following table:

Husband gets 40.0%
Assets
Item No.	Description	Percentage	Value
3	E street, Suburb S	100%	$1,400,000
7	R Pty Ltd	100%	$6,500
10	Household contents	100%	$750
12	Jewellery	100%	$5,000
13	Honda 125cc	100%	$1,200
14	Suburb S Municipal Council bond	100%	$10,350
17	Make AAA sports car	100%	$6,500
19	HSBC	100%	$19,400
20	Meredith Superannuation Fund	100%	$52,726
Liabilities
Item No.	Description	Percentage	Value
21	Mortgage St George Bank – E Street, Suburb S	100%	$828,000
Husband pays Wife			$256,144
Net Assets to Husband			$418,282
Wife gets 60.0%
Assets
Item No.	Description	Percentage	Value
1	Meredith Pty Ltd	100%	$251,219
9	Household contents	100%	$15,000
11	Jewellery	100%	$2,690
15	2007 Holden motor vehicle	100%	$18,000
16	2010 Toyota motor vehicle	100%	$36,000
18	Monies paid to the wife's mother	100%	$48,371
Wife receives			$256,144
Net Assets to Wife			$627,423

Standing back, I consider an adjustment of assets and liabilities in that manner to be one that is just and equitable between the parties.

ORDERS

The parties have agreed that there should be a splitting order so that the entire interest the wife has in the Meredith Superannuation Fund should be transferred to the husband.
As indicated above, I have taken into account the fact that the wife will have a potential debt to Hunt & Hunt as a consideration pursuant to s 79(4)(e) of the Act and I accordingly decline to make an order as sought by the wife that the husband indemnify the wife in relation to any outstanding ability to Hunt & Hunt. The wife will need to attend to any outstanding liability herself.
Although in the wife’s name, the husband has applied that the wife transfer to him the Suburb S Municipal Council bond which has a value on the balance sheet of $10,350. Given that the distribution table has been calculated on the basis that the husband would receive the advantage of this bond, I will make an order to that effect.
The husband has requested that he be given 42 days to refinance the Suburb S property on the basis that he retain that property. He should be given that opportunity. In the event that he is unable to effect a refinance within that time, the wife is to have the carriage of the sale of the Suburb S property so that the overall intent of the s 79 order can be implemented. The wife should receive a percentage of the proceeds of sale consistent with these Reasons for Judgment. Accordingly, in the event that the husband fails to pay to the wife the sum of $256,144 within two months, then the wife is to place Suburb S upon the market for sale and after the discharge of the mortgage, the net proceeds of the sale are to be divided 55 per cent to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife ($256,144/$1,400,000 - $828,000), with the husband ensuring that all outgoings are paid to the date of settlement. If there is to be sale, consequential orders will be made requiring the husband to give the wife vacant possession of the Suburb S property.
Otherwise, both parties will retain the companies and entities which they currently control and indemnify the other in relation to liabilities of those companies and entities. The orders shall extinguish all inter-entity debts.

ADULT CHILD MAINTENANCE

The wife seeks maintenance for B pursuant to s 66G of the Act. This part of the wife’s case did not attract any particular focus during the hearing. B turned 18 years of age. The father seemed to concede during final submissions that some periodic order should be made.
Section 66L of the Act provides, inter alia, that the court must not make an order for the maintenance of a child who is over the age of 18 unless it is satisfied that maintenance is necessary because relevantly, in this case, that child has a mental or physical disability.
At the age of two B was diagnosed with Rett Syndrome. In her Affidavit, the wife explains the major symptom of this condition is cerebral palsy including an intellectual and developmental delay. B also suffers complications with her digestive system and is tube-fed through a gastronomy button. B requires full-time care and assistance in all aspects of her life as a result of this condition. The wife has made an application with the Guardianship Tribunal with respect to the guardianship of B and should that application be successful the wife will have substantial care of B and will be required to fund all her living expenses. There is no issue between the parties as to the level of B’s disability in terms of her dependency upon her parents and the requirements of s 66L of the Act are easily satisfied. There is no question in this case of any strained relationship between B and her father.
Section 66H of the Act requires me to consider the financial support necessary for B’s maintenance and to determine the respective financial contributions that each party should make towards B’s needs.
Section 66K of the Act sets out the matters which the court must take into account when considering the respective financial contributions each of B’s parents should make towards her financial support.
Sections 66B and 66C of the Act set out respectively the objects and principles applicable when considering an application of this nature. There is a need to ensure that B’s proper needs are met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income earning capacity, property and financial resources of both her parents, and that her parents share equitably in her support and that that duty has priority over all commitments of the parents, other than commitments necessary to enable the parent to support him or herself and is not affected by B’s entitlement to any income tested pension, allowance or benefit.
Section 66J of the Act requires me to take into account B’s proper needs. B has no income, earning capacity, assets or independent financial resources. As indicated, B is 18 years of age and has the special needs that have been described.
In her case outline the wife sets out her estimate as to B’s day to day needs (not including any accommodation costs) as in Part N of her Financial Statement, being $199 per week ($10,348 per annum). Discussions during final submissions proceeded upon the basis of that asserted need.
One difficulty in the wife’s case is that she has not provided proper detailed admissible evidence in relation to what B actually costs her weekly.
Part of the $199 under “other adults” includes motor vehicle/petrol $45; motor vehicle/maintenance $7. Those expenses clearly do not relate to B but relate to CC (aged 22).
In Part N the wife indicates that she pays $199 for “other adults”. The other adults that she refers to are not specified. In fact, Part H indicates that the other adults for which the wife is making payments are CC ($105 per week for motor vehicle, registration, parking, petrol and groceries) and her current husband $110 for groceries and household expenses. There is no expenditure by the wife on accommodation because the whole of that expense at the time the wife swore her financial statement on 22 August 2013 was being paid for by her current husband who is said to have income of $1,673 per week and expenditure on rent of $1,357 per week. Item 18 of the form indicates that the wife’s current husband is making some of the payments which the wife refers to in Part N (but which payments are not specified).
The husband asserted he did not agree with the wife’s estimates in her financial statement, particularly with respect to; household repairs, electricity, petrol, motor vehicle maintenance, medical, dental and optical, education, holidays, repairs to furniture, hairdressing, and fumigation. The husband says he pays for B’s private health care and that B has never been on a holiday. The husband says the above categories of expenses should not be factored in as they do not exist. The husband further contends that B receives a government pension and through this the wife has received “hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last couple of years”. He submitted that if she needed to put money away she had an opportunity when that money came in.
As discussed with the husband during final submissions, s 66J(3)(b)(ii) of the Act provides that the court must disregard any entitlement of the child to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit.
Absent specific and detailed evidence and doing the best I can with the evidence contained in the wife’s financial statement, I am prepared to accept that the following expenses are being paid by the wife for B:
Food   $50.00
Household supplies   $5.00
House repairs   $1.00
Electricity   $5.00
Clothing and shoes   $3.00
Children’s activities   $3.00
Medical/dental/optical                    $7.00
Entertainment and hobbies            $4.00
Holidays   $19.00
Chemist and pharmaceuticals        $9.00
Gifts   $1.00
Hairdressing/toiletries                    $1.00
$135.00
It would also be reasonable to ascribe to B, one fifth of the cost of the accommodation in which she resides, in the sum of $271 ($1,357 ÷ 5).
Accordingly, I find that B’s proper needs are in the sum of $400 per week. Taking into account that B spends some time with her father, I find it would be proper to require the husband to contribute that amount claimed, in the sum of $199, towards B’s necessary financial support should he have the capacity to do so.
Based on my earlier discussion in relation to the husband’s earning capacity, I find that he has the capacity to make that payment on a weekly basis.
The wife is seeking a lump sum of $104,000 ($199 x 52 x 10) which would fund such costs for a period of ten years. It was submitted by the wife, given the husband’s conduct, attitude and propensity to litigate, that a lump sum is appropriate in these circumstances. The husband contended that in accordance with the Act the lump sum order should not be made as he is willing and able, and ‘at every turn [has] tried to provide for [B]”.
I accept that the husband genuinely intends to make a contribution towards B’s proper needs whilst in the wife’s care. I do not intend to make a lump sum order of $100,000. The order needs to be made on a periodic basis given that there are still unresolved proceedings in the Guardianship Tribunal. The husband has an asset from which he is currently deriving $100,000 in income, which asset could be liquidated in circumstances where he defaulted in payment of the periodic order.
The order is being made on the basis that the wife will continue to have the substantial responsibility of caring for B. I do not intend to limit the time in which this periodic order will operate. Both parties have the ability, pursuant to s 66S of the Act, to seek a modification of the orders if circumstances changed to justify the variation.
The order will be dated from the last day of the hearing. There will be an amount of arrears that the husband should pay as a lump sum which shall be charged against his interest in the Suburb S property.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eighty (180) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 6 June 2014

Associate:

Date: 6 June 2014

SCHEDULE 1 (Husband’s application )

Orders 1 to 3 sought related to parenting orders.
n/a
n/a
That within seven days, Coleman & Greig Lawyers deliver a cheque to the husband – from the controlled monies account (order 1.7 of the orders of Justice Watts, 30 Oct 13) – totalling half of the $439,615.14 received by [Meredith] Pty Limited Pty Limited from the owners – Strata Plan No. … pursuant to the Deed dated 29 Jun 10 between [Meredith] Pty Limited and the owners – strata plan No. … .
That within forty two days of the date of these orders the wife do all acts things and sign and execute all documents necessary to transfer to [R] Pty Limited as trustee of the [Meredith] Family Trust No. 2 or [the husband] (as nominated ) any right, title and interest which she may have in the property situated at and known as [E Street, Suburb S] in the State of New South Wales being all of the land comprised in Folio Identifier … (“the [Suburb S] property”).
That simultaneously with the wife’s compliance with order 5 hereof, the husband shall do all such things as may be necessary to:
6.1Withdraw the caveat lodged by the husband and registered against the [Suburb S] property;
6.2Arrange for St George Bank to discharge the wife from the first mortgage – presently in joint names – registered on the title of the [Suburb S] property.
That the Family Court of Australia direct the Office of State Revenue in the State of New South Wales to issue an exemption from landholder duty on this transfer of the [Suburb S] property.
That the Family Court of Australia direct the Office of State Revenue in the State of New South Wales to issue an exemption from mortgage duty on this refinancing.
That the wife repay [R] Pty Limited as trustee for the [Meredith Family] Trust No. 2 the $131,000 deposit paid on 17 Dec 11 for the [Suburb S] property.
In the event that the husband is unable to refinance the [Suburb S] property within forty two days of the date of these orders; within forty nine days of the date of these orders the wife shall do all things as may be necessary to prepare a contract for sale of land and list the [Suburb S] property for sale by auction with the husband and to sell the [Suburb S] property for the best price reasonably obtainable and upon the following terms and conditions:
10.1The auction shall take place within six weeks after the date forty nine day of the date of these orders or as soon as practicable whichever is the later.
10.2The wife shall attend at the auction and endorse the contract of sale as directed by the auctioneer, if the [Suburb S] property is sold under the hammer.
10.3In the event that the [Suburb S] property is passed in, the auctioneer shall negotiate with the highest bidder and shall not endorse the contract for sale of land with the willing purchaser for less than $1,400,000.
10.4That in the event that the [Suburb S] property does not sell on the day of the auction the husband shall offer the [Suburb S] property for sale by private treaty (for not less than $1,400,000). If the [Suburb S] property does not sell by private treaty within three week after the date of the auction then the wife shall relist the [Suburb S] property for sale by auction at intervals of no more than nine weeks upon the same terms and conditions as set out herein until the [Suburb S] property is sold.

That upon the [Suburb S] property being sold at auction the husband will provide vacant possession to the willing purchaser within forty two days from the date of exchange of contracts for sale of land.
That pending the sale of the [Suburb S] property the wife shall do all things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to facilitate the sale of the [Suburb S] property by the husband within seven days of receiving a request from the husband to do such things or sign such documents including but not limited to.
12.1Facilitate the discharge of the mortgage to St George Bank secured against Folio Identifier …
12.2Be restrained from placing any bids at any of the auctions of the [Suburb S] property.
That pending the sale of the [Suburb S] property the husband shall do all things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to facilitate the sale of the [Suburb S] property including but not limited to:
13.1.Facilitate the discharge of the mortgage to St George Bank secured against Folio Identifier … .
The husband shall continue to make all the repayments to St George Bank (loan a/c No. …55 & a/c No. …19) until the wife’s name is discharged from the mortgages secured over Folio Identifier … .
The wife shall pay all the rates due to the [Suburb S] Municipal Council up until the day of transfer of Folio Identifier … .
That upon the [Suburb S] property being sold at auction the wife shall distribute the proceeds of such sale as follows:
16.1.In payment of the husband’s and or the real estate agents commission and expenses on the marketing campaign(s).
16.2.In payment to the conveyancers for preparing the contract for sale of land, acting on behalf of the vendor between exchange and settlement and discharging the mortgage with St George Bank.
16.3.In discharge of the mortgage to St George Bank secured over Folio Identifier … .
16.4.In payment of the balance then remaining to the husband.
Within forty two days the wife relinquish any right, title and interest in the $10,350 bond held by [Suburb S] Municipal Council.
That the wife shall forthwith relinquish any right, title and interest in the following including but not limited to payment of any dividends:
[H] Pty Limited ACN …
[P] Pty Limited (de-registered)
[Q] Pty Limited ACN …
[R] Pty Limited ACN …
[T] Limited ACN …
[Meredith] Superannuation Fund ABN …
[Meredith] Family Trust
[Meredith] Family Trust No. 2
That the husband shall forthwith relinquish any right, title and interest in the following including but [sic] limited to payment of any dividends:
[Meredith] Pty Limited (in liquidation) ACN …
[A] Pty Limited (in liquidation) ACN …
And the wife shall simultaneously indemnify the husband and keep him indemnified in relation to all liabilities whatsoever and howsoever arising with respect to the above named entities.
That the husband and the wife forthwith shall do all things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to resign as a trustee from the [Meredith] Superannuation Fund, furthermore the wife shall relinquish any right, title and interest to [Meredith] Superannuation Fund or its accumulated balance.
That the wife shall within forty two days of the date of these orders shall do all things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to facilitate the transfer of Lot [1] SP No. …5.
That the Family Court of Australia direct the Office of State Revenue in the State of New South Wales to issue an exemption from landholder duty on this transfer for Lot [1] SP …5.
That within seven days of the date of these orders Coleman & Greig Lawyers shall deliver two cheques totalling the remaining balance of the controlled monies account (order 1.7 of Justice Watts, 30 Oct 13) in equal share into Macquarie cash management account No. …54 in the name of [J] & Macquarie cash management account No. …21 in the name of [JJ]; for their education.
That other than hereinbefore provided the parties shall be solely entitled as between the parties to all property and financial resources presently in his or her possession or control.
That other than hereinbefore provided the parties shall be solely liable as between the parties to all liabilities presently in his or her name.
That in the event that either party fails to execute and [sic] deed or instrument necessary to give effect to these orders within seven days of being requested to do so, the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Sydney shall be appointed pursuant to Section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and do all acts [sic] things as may be necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.
That the wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.

SCHEDULE 2 (Wife’s application )

That within thirty days of the date of these orders the wife do all acts and things and sign and execute all documents necessary to transfer to the husband any right, title and interest which she may have in the property situated t and known as [E Street, Suburb S] in the State of New South Wales being all of the land comprised on Folio Identifiers … (“the [Suburb S] property”).
That simultaneously with the wife’s compliance with order 1 hereof, the husband shall do all such things as may be necessary to:
2.1.Withdraw the caveat lodged by the husband and registered against the [Suburb S] property; and
2.2.Discharge the mortgage to St George Bank Limited secured against the [Suburb S] property; and
2.3.Pay to the wife the sum of $570,000.
That in the event the husband fails to comply with order 2 hereof within thirty days of the date of these orders the wife shall do all such things as may be necessary to list the [Suburb S] property for sale by auction and to sell the [Suburb S] property for the best price reasonably obtainable and upon the following terms and conditions:
3.1.The auction shall take place within six weeks after the date one calendar month of the date of these orders or as soon as practicable, whichever is the later.
3.2.The wife shall attend at the auction and in the event that the [Suburb S] property is passed in the wife shall negotiate with the highest bidder and shall accept any offer to purchase the [Suburb S] property at no less than 90% of the reserve price.
3.3.That in the event that the [Suburb S] property does not sell at auction or does not sell by private treaty within two weeks after the date of the auction then the wife shall relist the [Suburb S] property for sale by auction at intervals of no more than six weeks upon the same terms and conditions as set out herein until the [Suburb S] property is sold.
That upon the [Suburb S] property being sold at auction the wife shall distribute the proceeds of such sale as follows:
4.1.In payment of real estate agent’s commission and expenses on the sale;
4.2.In payment of property legal costs and disbursements of each of the parties of and incidental to the sale;
4.3.In discharge of the mortgage to St George Bank Limited secured over the [Suburb S] property;
4.4.In adjustment of rates, levies and taxes on the [Suburb S] property;
4.5.In payment of the balance then remaining to the wife; and
the husband shall simultaneously withdraw the caveat registered by him against the [Suburb S] property.
That pending the sale of the [Suburb S] property pursuant to orders 3 and 4 hereof the husband shall:
5.1.Be solely responsible for all mortgage repayments rates, taxes and other outgoings associated with the [Suburb S] property and the husband shall indemnify the wife and keep her indemnified with respect to all such mortgage repayments, rates, taxes and outgoings pending the sale of the [Suburb S] property;
5.2.Vacate and shall cause any other occupants to vacate the [Suburb S] property thirty days after the date of these orders, leaving the property in its current state of repair and condition;
5.3.Do all such things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to facilitate the sale of the [Suburb S] property by the wife within seven days of receiving a request from the wife to do such things or sign such documents including but not limited to: ‘
5.3.1.Facilitate the discharge of the mortgage to St George Bank Limited secured against the [Suburb S] property;
5.3.2.Causing the caveat registered by the husband against the [Suburb S] property to be withdrawn, at the husband’s expense.
5.4.Be and is hereby restrained from placing a bid at the auction of the [Suburb S] property.
That the husband shall forthwith relinquish any right title and interest in the following including but not limited to payment of any dividends:
6.1.[Meredith] Pty Ltd ACN …; and
6.2.[A] Pty Limited ACN …
That the husband and wife forthwith do all such things as may be necessary to cause the wife’s entitlement in the [Meredith] Superannuation Fund to be rolled over to another superannuation fund nominated by the wife and:
7.1.It is noted for the purpose of this order the wife’s entitlement in the [Meredith] Superannuation Fund is about $31,574;
7.2.That the wife shall within thirty days of the date of these orders transfer to the husband her right title and interest in the property situated at and known as Lot [1]/[KK Street, Suburb LL] in the State of New South Wales being all of the land comprised in Folio Identifier [1]/SP…5 (“the [Suburb LL] property”) and the husband shall thereafter indemnify the wife and keep her indemnified for all liabilities associated with the [Suburb LL] property.
That upon the husband’s compliance with order 2 hereof the wife shall relinquish any right, title and interest in the husband’s interest in the following:
8.1.[H] Pty Limited ACN …;
8.2.[P] Pty Limited ACN …;
8.3.[Q] Pty Limited ACN …;
8.4.[R] Pty Limited ACN …;
8.5.The [Meredith] Superannuation Fund
and the husband shall simultaneously indemnify the wife and keep her identified in relation to all liabilities whatsoever and howsoever arising with respect to the above named entities.
That pursuant to sections 66G, 66L and 66K of the Family Law Act 1975 the husband shall pay to the wife by way of adult child maintenance in respect of the child [B] born … 1995 the sum of $199 per week the first such sum payable within seven days of the date of these orders.
That other than hereinbefore provided the parties shall be solely entitled as between the parties to all property and financial resources presently in his or her possession or control.
That other than hereinbefore provided the parties shall be solely liable as between the parties to all liabilities presently in his or her name.
That in the event that either party fails to execute any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to these orders within seven days of being requested to do so, the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Sydney shall be appointed pursuant to Section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and do all acts and things as may be necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.
That the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.

[2014] FamCA 376

6 June 2014

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Equity & Trusts

Legal Concepts

Remedies

Costs

Duty of Care

Fiduciary Duty

Injunction

Statutory Construction

·	Home loan (Suburb S)	$1,400
·	Land loan (Suburb S)	$2,400
·	The Unit 2 loan (that related to the initial monies that they borrowed to buy the property management business)	$4,100
·	The Unit 3 loan (unit at HH Street, Suburb S), less tenant payments	$2,200