Milic and Lynch

This matter concerned orders made by Judge Riley concerning the property of the parties, the wife and the husband. The dispute revolved around the division of their combined assets, particularly a real property, and the terms upon which this division should occur.

The court was required to determine the appropriate property orders to be made, considering the duration of the marriage and the contributions of each party. Specifically, the court addressed whether the factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) must be considered in short marriage cases, and whether an asset-by-asset approach or a global approach was more appropriate for dividing the parties' property.

In relation to short marriage cases, the court affirmed that the factors under section 75(2) must be considered, citing *In the Marriage of Quinn*, which clarified that even in short marriages, a just and equitable order requires consideration of these factors alongside contributions. Regarding the approach to property division, the court referred to *In the Marriage of J G and H J McMahon*, noting that while a global approach is generally preferred for convenience, an asset-by-asset approach can be appropriate in specific circumstances, particularly where parties have made differing contributions to particular assets or where the marriage was of short duration and unhappy, leading to a strict division of assets. The court found that in this case, an asset-by-asset approach was convenient and just.

The court ordered that the wife pay the husband a specified sum within 60 days. Contemporaneously, the parties were to discharge the existing mortgage on the real property and replace it with a mortgage to the wife alone, the husband was to provide a withdrawal of caveat, and he was to relinquish any claim to the real property. In the event the payment was not made, the real property was to be listed for sale by auction, with provisions for a reserve price and sale by private treaty if necessary. The proceeds of sale were to be applied to sale costs, discharge of encumbrances, and then distributed to ensure the husband received 42% of the parties' combined assets, with the balance to the wife. The husband was also to indemnify the wife against a specific loan. Further orders detailed the parties' entitlements to other property, superannuation, insurance policies, and liabilities, and severed any joint tenancies. All extant applications were dismissed.