NICKS and NICKS

[2020] FCWA 213

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: BUNBURY

CITATION: NICKS and NICKS [2020] FCWA 213

CORAM: SUTHERLAND CJ

HEARD: 12 OCTOBER 2020

DELIVERED : 30 NOVEMBER 2020

FILE NO/S: PTW 5635 of 2019

BETWEEN: MRS NICKS

Applicant

AND

MR NICKS

Respondent

Catchwords:

PROPERTY SETTLEMENT - Assessment of contributions and future needs - Case turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr Garvey
Respondent	:	Mr Kalle

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Christopher Garvey
Respondent	:	DK Family Legal

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Hepworth v Hepworth (1963) 110 CLR 309

Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nicks and Nicks has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

INTRODUCTION:

1[Ms Nicks] (the “wife”) and [Mr Nicks] (the “husband”) were unable to reach agreement in relation to financial issues, following the end of their 13 year relationship. The wife sought a 70 per cent division of the parties’ net property in her favour. On the other hand, the husband’s position was that he should receive an 80 per cent division in his favour. Both parties agreed that the former matrimonial home in [Town A] should be sold and the net proceeds be divided between the parties. They otherwise agreed that they would each retain all other property in their respective name / possession.

THE EVIDENCE:

2Both parties were represented by lawyers throughout the proceedings, including at trial. The wife relied on her trial affidavit,[1] affidavit in reply[2] and financial statement.[3] The husband relied upon his trial affidavit[4] and financial statement.[5] Neither the wife nor the husband called any other witnesses to give evidence at the trial. Each party cross-examined the other party. I considered that for the most part, each party gave their evidence honestly and as they saw it.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES – PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS:

[1] Wife’s trial affidavit filed 6 May 2020.

[2] Wife’s affidavit in reply filed 2 June 2020.

[3] Wife’s Form 13 financial statement filed 6 May 2020.

[4] Husband’s trial affidavit filed 27 May 2020

[5] Husband’s Form 13 financial statement filed 27 May 2020.

3These proceedings are determined pursuant to Part VIII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). I must firstly determine whether it is just and equitable to make an order,[6] having regard to the parties’ rights and interests in their existing property.[7] If I so determine, then I must consider the factors set out in the legislation.[8] In this case both parties maintained and I am satisfied that having regard to their property interests, it was just and equitable to make an order by way of alteration of property interests. The parties separated on a final basis in late 2018 and both sought to sever their financial relationship with each other.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Introduction

[6] Refer to section 79(2) of the Act.

[7] Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108.

[8] Refer to section 79(4) of the Act.

4The wife was born in 1944 and is 76 years old. She lives in the former matrimonial home in Town A. The wife is retired and is in receipt of the aged pension. She has three adult children from a previous relationship.

5The husband was also born in 1944 and is 76 years old. The husband has recently commenced living in rental accommodation, after previously living with family members or house-sitting for friends. The husband is a retired [property developer] and is in receipt of the aged pension. The husband was previously married to his first wife and they had four (now adult) children: [Ms M], [Ms O], [Mr D] and [Mr N]. The husband and his first wife separated in or about 1981. Thereafter, the husband was in a long term relationship with his second partner, [Ms A], from about 1981 until 2003.

Relevant financial events prior to the parties commencing cohabitation

6In or about 1998/1999 the husband sold his [business] and retired. In 1999, the husband then purchased a 60 acre [rural property] known as [Property A] for $270,000. After purchasing the property the husband undertook considerable work to the property, including: building a shed on the property, connecting electricity to the property, installing a 100,000 litre water storage tank for irrigation purposes and establishing [an orchard]. He also ran a small number of [livestock] on the property. At about the same time, the husband also purchased a block of land in [Town B] (upon which he and Ms A constructed a home in which to live) and an investment property in [Town C]. The husband otherwise supported himself from his investments.

7I accept the husband’s evidence that in or about 2001 he travelled to [State A] at the request of his son, Mr D, to look at a [property] that Mr D wished to purchase. Subsequently, the husband provided financial assistance to Mr D to enable him to purchase the property by gifting [him] the sum of $400,000 and lending him the further sum of $200,000, to be repaid over time on an interest-free basis.

8The parties met in or about 2003 and commenced a relationship with each other in or about 2004. At this time: (1) the husband continued to be retired and supported himself from his investments; and (2) the wife worked as a [nurse] at a [private hospital] (where Ms A also worked) and lived in [omitted] rental accommodation.

9In 2004, Ms A won the lottery and received a cash prize in excess of $1,000,000. In 2005, the husband and Ms A reached a financial settlement pursuant to which Ms A retained, inter alia, [the properties in Town B and Town C] and the husband retained, inter alia, Property A.

10In 2005, the husband arranged [to] relocate a small cottage (that he had been given) onto Property A. The husband paid the costs of relocating and restumping the cottage in the amount of $24,000. Thereafter the parties arranged for considerable repairs and improvements to be undertaken to the cottage and surrounds, including connecting services, painting, erecting a carport and patio, fencing and establishing lawns and gardens. I am satisfied that the husband paid for the vast majority of the costs associated with the improvements to the cottage and gardens. The wife conceded as much in cross-examination, when recollecting that she supplied the second hand carport from her previous rental accommodation and that she paid for a shower and some curtains to be installed in the cottage.

11I am satisfied that both parties worked hard to effect the repairs and improvements to the cottage and surrounds. Although the wife conceded in cross-examination that the husband did more of the physical work, the husband also conceded in cross-examination that he and the wife worked equally on the house and gardens.

The parties commence cohabitation

12The parties commenced living together in the cottage on Property A in or about mid-2005, after the main repairs and improvements had been completed.

13The parties agreed that at the commencement of the parties’ cohabitation in mid-2005:

a)The value of the wife’s property was very modest and comprised: (1) superannuation entitlements of approximately $20,000; and (2) a motor vehicle, household furniture and effects. The wife had already retired from her employment as a nurse and was supporting herself by drawing down on her superannuation entitlements; and

b)The value of the husband’s property was approximately $1,900,000 to $2,000,000 and comprised: (1) the unencumbered Property A; (2) his investments; and (3) [omitted] plant and equipment, a motor vehicle and a dinghy.

Relevant events after the parties commenced cohabitation

14I am satisfied that during their relationship, neither the wife nor the husband engaged in any remunerative employment. The parties tended to Property A and also travelled together regularly for holidays. The parties also took some holidays separately from each other.[9] Early in the relationship, the wife financially contributed to a very limited extent: by drawing down on her superannuation entitlements to meet some of the day-to-day expenses until the funds were exhausted. The husband was the primary financial provider, supporting himself and the wife from his investments. The husband managed his investments with the assistance of professional financial advisors. The parties did not have any joint bank accounts and maintained their own separate accounts.

[9] For example, the husband visited his son Mr D [in the Eastern States] for a few weeks approximately every two years and the wife would stay with her family members on a regular basis and she also went on an overseas cruise with her daughter on one occasion.

15Although the wife maintained that the husband was very secretive about his financial affairs during their relationship, I am not persuaded that was the case. For example, the wife conceded in cross‑examination that she was well aware that: (1) the husband had sold his business and was living off his investments; and (2) the husband had provided substantial financial assistance to Mr D to enable him to purchase the [the property] in State A. The wife also conceded that she did not seek to be involved in making any decisions about the husband’s “money” and was happy to leave all such decisions to him. I also accept the husband’s evidence that all his financial documents were kept at home, were not locked away and accordingly were available for the wife to go through, if she so chose.

16I am satisfied that during their relationship, both parties made significant non-financial / homemaker contributions: the wife was primarily responsible for the household tasks inside the home (including cooking, cleaning and washing); and the husband was primarily responsible for the household tasks outside the home (including running Property A until its sale and attending to the gardening and general maintenance of the parties’ properties). I am also satisfied that the wife would assist the husband with outside tasks as and when requested by him, for example: assisting him with various chores associated with the orchard.[10]

[10] The parties produced [fruit from the orchard]. However, the parties earned little, if any, profits therefrom and the activity was undertaken very much as a hobby.

17The parties married in 2006. In the lead up to their marriage, the husband requested the wife to enter into a Binding Financial Agreement. Although a document was prepared, the wife refused to sign it. However, at around this time, the husband did document the $200,000 loan arrangement with Mr D, by way of a written loan agreement, and Mr D commenced repayments. I accept the husband’s evidence that over time, Mr D repaid the loan in full.

18In 2007, on the advice of his professional financial advisors, the husband established a self-managed superannuation fund, through which to hold and manage some of his investments. The husband was the only member of the fund. I accept the husband’s evidence that he wished to make arrangements to financially provide for his three other children, as he had previously done for Mr D. The husband accordingly signed a binding death benefit nomination, nominating his children Ms O, Ms M and Mr N as the sole beneficiaries of his superannuation fund in equal shares.

19In 2008, the parties purchased [Property D] in [Town D] their joint names for $265,000. The parties agreed that the husband paid the entire purchase price and related costs from his resources and the wife made no financial contribution thereto. The parties intended to build a house on the property and move to Town D, but their plans were derailed when the wife became unwell and the parties decided to live closer to treatment / health services. The parties placed the property on the market for sale, but it remained unsold for several years.

20After the wife’s illness was diagnosed, the parties agreed to sell Property A and move closer to [City A]. In May 2009 the property was sold for $875,000.

21The parties agreed that the value of Property A significantly increased between 1999 and 2009. It appeared to be common ground that over this period, the increase in value was in part due to market forces generally. The husband also conceded in cross‑examination that the wife’s contributions to the property over the years would have also played some part in the increase in value of the property, albeit he also maintained that most of the value of the property was in the land and not in the cottage. However, I observe that there was no cogent evidence before the court as to: (1) the value of the property prior to the cottage being re-located onto it; (2) the value of the property as at the commencement of the parties’ cohabitation in mid-2005; and (3) how the sale price for the property in 2009 was calculated (for example, the value of the land as distinct from the improvements on the property). I am unable to make any findings about these matters.

22In 2009, the parties then arranged to purchase a block of land in Town A for $199,000 (plus costs) in their joint names and constructed a house [(“Property E”)] on the block for $274,000. The costs were funded entirely from the net proceeds of sale of Property A. The husband disbursed the remaining net proceeds of sale as follows: (1) he deposited the amount of $150,000 into his self-managed superannuation fund; (2) he purchased shares; and (3) he purchased [Motor Vehicle A] for himself and [Motor Vehicle B] for the wife.

23The parties moved into Property E in or about 2010. I accept the husband’s evidence that he continued to make some improvements to the property after the parties moved in, including planting an extensive vegetable garden and citrus orchard. The parties also continued to travel regularly on holidays.

24By 2013, the parties had still been unable to sell Property D. In May 2013, the parties agreed that the husband would buy the wife a new caravan at a cost of $52,000; and in return, the wife would transfer her interest in Property D to the husband. Property D was eventually transferred into the husband’s sole name in June 2014. At the same time, the husband arranged to close down his self-managed superannuation fund and wind up the fund’s corporate trustee.[11] I accept the husband’s evidence that he decided to also make provision for his three other children during his lifetime, and considered it only fair, given the funds he had already given to Mr D in 2001. I am satisfied that the husband then gifted Property D and the funds that had been invested in his self‑managed superannuation fund (in the amount of approximately $800,000 to $900,000) to the [Nicks] Family Trust: a trust established and controlled at all times by his children Ms O, Ms M and Mr N.

[11] I accept the husband’s evidence that the trustee of the self-managed superannuation fund was wound up in or about March 2015.

25After mid-2014, the husband financially supported the parties from his remaining savings and investments, together with some financial assistance provided by his children from time to time. The parties continued to live at Property E and continued to go away on holidays on a regular basis.

Final separation and relevant events thereafter

26The parties separated on a final basis [in late] 2018. I formed the strong impression from the parties’ evidence in cross‑examination that the separation was quite abrupt and to some extent, took both parties by surprise. After separation the wife continued to live in Property E. The husband financially supported the wife by depositing $1,200 per month into her bank account, until February 2019, (the wife having earlier confirmed to the husband that she had started receiving an aged pension in January). In addition, the husband continued to meet the costs of the outgoings and upkeep for the Property E (albeit from February 2019, the wife also assumed responsibility for some of these costs).

27The wife maintained that just prior to the parties’ final separation, the husband gave her a note which said that he intended to give some of his money to his children, so that they would qualify for an aged pension. The husband maintained he had no recollection of giving the wife any such note. At the end of the day, I am not persuaded either that the husband gave the wife a note in late 2018 as she alleged, or that he subsequently made any other gifts of any significance to his children.

28The wife sold her caravan in May 2019 for $32,000. I do not accept the wife’s evidence that she had to sell the caravan to pay for “basic necessities”. Rather, I am satisfied that the wife used the funds to meet her family law litigation costs and advanced the sum of $8,000 to one of her adult children ($2,000 of which has subsequently been repaid).

29The wife commenced these property proceedings on 22 July 2019. The husband filed his responding documents on 4 October 2019. Procedural orders were made by the Court on 7 October 2019, including for the parties to attend a Conciliation Conference. The parties attended two Conciliation Conferences with their lawyers: on 21 November 2019 and 7 February 2020, but no agreement was reached. Directions were then made progressing the matter to trial, including listing a Readiness Hearing on 9 June 2020. The proceedings were ultimately listed to trial before me in the City A Judicial Circuit commencing on 12 October 2020.

The wife’s position in relation to the husband’s gifts to his children

30The issue of the husband making the gifts to his children has been a significant issue between the parties during these proceedings. The wife’s position in relation to the gifts changed over time. For example:

a)In her trial affidavit (albeit not at the trial) the wife appeared to maintain that the husband gifted the funds to Child A in 2001 and established the Nicks Family Trust in 2014 in an attempt to defeat her family law claim. The wife sought that the gifts be “added back” into the parties’ property pool. So that there is no doubt about the matter, I am not persuaded on the available evidence of the wife’s claims in this regard, given: (1) that the husband’s gift to Child A occurred in 2001, well before the parties met each other; and (2) the evidence of both parties that they remained happily married as at 2014 and did not in fact separate until over four years later.

b)In both her trial affidavit and at trial, the wife complained that the husband divested himself of his assets without her consent. However, the wife appeared to be under the misapprehension that during their relationship, the husband required her consent to deal with his assets. He did not. As the High Court observed in Stanford and Stanford: “community of ownership arising from marriage has no place in the common law”.[12]

c)The wife also maintained that the husband chose to divest himself of his assets to benefit his children rather than her, and that the husband’s actions in this regard (in the context of an intact marriage) amounted to matrimonial misconduct and/or were akin to being wasteful, reckless or wanton with his assets. The wife was unable to point to any relevant legal authority in support of her proposition. At the end of the day, I am not persuaded that the husband’s actions in making the gifts to his children either amounted to matrimonial misconduct or were wasteful, reckless or wanton. This was particularly in circumstances where it was common ground that the husband had also made provision for the wife and himself from his assets, including purchasing Property E in the parties’ joint names. The husband had also purchased the wife a motor vehicle and caravan, both of which were registered in her sole name.

d)For the purposes of the trial, the wife also appeared to maintain that the gifts to Mr D and the Nicks Family Trust were a financial resource to the husband as “he has sufficient control as a matter of fact” to draw upon the funds when needed and that he “exercises de facto control over the officers” of the corporate trustee of the trust. However, I am not persuaded on the available evidence that this was the case. Although it was common ground that the husband’s children have financially assisted him from time to time, there was simply no cogent evidence from which I could be satisfied that the husband “controlled” his children in this regard and that he could simply draw upon the funds / assets that he had previously gifted to them.

EXISTING INTERESTS IN PROPERTY:

[12] Stanford and Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108, [39] citing Hepworth v Hepworth (1963) 110 CLR 309 at 317 per Windeyer J.

31I am satisfied that the property interests of the parties totals $517,639, as is as set out in the following table (which largely follows the joint schedule agreed to by the parties):[13]

[13] Refer to the Joint Schedule of Assets, Liabilities and Resources handed up to the court on 12 October 2020. Neither the husband nor the wife sought that the court take into account either the proceeds of sale of the caravan retained by the wife after separation, or the parties’ paid litigation costs.

Item #	Assets / Liabilities	$ Value
1	Property E (joint names)	$460,000
2	Motor Vehicle B (wife’s name)	$4,750
3	[Motor Vehicle C] (husband’s name)	$30,000
4	Boats x 2 (husband’s name)	$8,500
5	Bank accounts x 2 (husband’s name)	$1,406
6	Bank account (wife’s name)	$6,889
7	[Husband’s insurance]	$6,094
TOTAL	$517,639

SECTION 79(4) (a), (b) (c) FACTORS:

32The parties agreed that at the commencement of the parties’ cohabitation in mid-2005, the value of the wife’s property was extremely modest when compared to that of the husband. The parties also agreed that during their relationship, the husband was the primary financial provider and financially supported the parties from his investments. I am satisfied that up until the date of their final separation, the husband made a greater financial contribution than did the wife, even after having regard to the very substantial gift that the husband made to the Nicks Family Trust in 2014 totalling over $1,000,000. For a short period after the parties separated in late 2018, the husband provided some financial support to the wife and paid the outgoings and upkeep costs for Property E. Since approximately February 2019, both parties have contributed towards such costs.

33Property E now forms the single most valuable asset of the parties. The funds to purchase the property were sourced from part of the net proceeds of Property A, which the husband already owned at the commencement of the relationship. However, as I have already identified, I am satisfied that both parties made significant non-financial contributions to Property A in the months leading up to the commencement of their cohabitation in mid-2005. The husband acknowledged that the wife worked equally with him to effect the repairs and improvements to the cottage and surrounds. Thereafter, I am satisfied that the husband, assisted by the wife when requested, continued to make substantial non-financial contributions, including to the maintenance and upkeep of Property A until its sale, and thereafter to Property E. I am also satisfied that the wife made a very substantial contribution to the welfare of the family constituted by the husband and the wife in her role as homemaker. Given the length of the parties’ relationship, I am satisfied that the wife’s contribution in this regard should not be given merely token recognition.[14]

[14] Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, 609 and 610 (per Gibbs CJ).

34In my view, having regard to the factors set out above, I am satisfied that overall, contributions should be assessed as to 50 per cent to the husband and 50 per cent to the wife.

SECTION 79(4)(e) / SECTION 75(2) FACTORS:

35I will now consider the relevant factors as required by the legislation. If I do not refer to a factor, it is because I consider the matter is not relevant in this case.

36At the time of the trial, both parties were 76 years old, retired and in receipt of the aged pension. Both parties had suffered some health issues. At the time of the trial, both parties were recovering from recent surgery: the wife [omitted] and the husband [omitted]. Both parties continue to live a very modest lifestyle. There was no evidence that either the husband or the wife had re-partnered, or have any responsibility to financially support any other person. Neither party had any superannuation entitlements. Weighing the various factors identified by me I am not satisfied that there should be any adjustment in favour of either the husband or the wife.

SECTION 79(4)(d),(f) & (g) FACTORS:

37The orders proposed by the parties have no impact on the earning capacity of either party. I have already dealt with the remaining factors, in so far as they are relevant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

38I intend to order that the property interests of the parties be divided equally between the parties in accordance with the following table:

Husband	$Value	Wife	$Value
Property E	To be sold	Property E	To be sold
Motor Vehicle C	$30,000	Motor Vehicle B	$4,750
Bank accounts x 2	$1,406	Bank account	$6,889
Boats x 2	$8,500
Husband’s insurance	$6,094
TOTAL	$46,000 + portion of Property E net sale proceeds	TOTAL	$11,639 + portion of Property E net sale proceeds
50%	50%

39The parties agreed that they should each retain their own separate property and that Property E should be sold and the net proceeds divided between them. The husband sought quite detailed orders in relation to the sale of the property. On the other hand, aside from a general order for the sale of the property, the wife did not seek any other specific orders in relation thereto. Both parties did seek specific orders in relation to the payment of some costs prior to the sale, including the costs of installing smoke detectors, the payment of rates and taxes and the payment of outgoings. Little attention was given to these issues in the parties’ respective trial affidavits or during the trial. Subject to the parties having liberty to make further submissions, I considered that:

a)The orders sought by the husband at paragraph 1 of his Minute in relation the listing of the property, ensuring that the property was fitted with compliant smoke alarms and residual current devices, setting the listing price from time to time, and cooperating with the real estate agent conducting the sale were all sensible and likely to reduce potential disputes between the parties;

b)Save for two matters, the order sought by the husband at paragraph 2 of his Minute (in relation to the wife continuing to have sole use of the property until its sale and the wife continuing to meet the costs of utilities, water usage charges and general upkeep) were also appropriate. However, I am not satisfied that either the wife or the husband should be solely responsible for the costs of the shire and water rates on the property, or any maintenance costs for the property necessary for its sale, having regard to the parties’ limited financial circumstances. In my view, both parties should equally meet such costs.

40Pursuant to the settlement, each party will receive net assets of nearly $260,000, including a significant cash component. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the proposed financial division is just and equitable and otherwise proper.

ORDERS:

41I propose to make the following orders:

Real Property

1.The Applicant, [MS NICKS], and the Respondent, [MR NICKS], do all acts and things necessary and sign such documents and paper-writings as required to list the [Property E] on the market for sale by private treaty in the following manner:

1.1list the property on the market for sale by private treaty with an agent ("Agent") agreed to between the parties at a list price agreed to between the parties;

1.2the parties shall be equally responsible for and pay one half of the costs of implementing and/or maintaining all residual current devices and all mains powered smoke alarms within the home and ensuring compliance with relevant legislative requirements;

1.3the Agent shall, if requested by any of the parties at a date two (2) calendar months after the date upon which [Property E] is first listed pursuant to Order 1.1 herein and therefore at two (2) calendar month intervals, review the sale price and if agreed, nominate a sale price less than the originally nominated sale price;

1.4the parties shall each reasonably cooperate in every way with the Agent including (without limiting the generality of the foregoing):

1.4.1making a key to [Property E] available to the Agent;

1.4.2allowing inspection of [Property E] at all reasonable times as requested by the Agent;

1.4.3not acting in any way as to hinder or prevent a sale being affected;

1.4.4ensuring [Property E], including the grounds, are in a neat and clean condition at the time of inspection by the Agent and prospective purchasers satisfactory by the Agent; and

1.4.5signing all documents requested by the Agent relating to the listing for sale of [Property E].

2.Pending the sale of [Property E]:

2.1the Applicant be entitled to sole use and occupation of [Property E];

2.2the Applicant remain solely liable for any utilities associated with the water usage charges and general upkeep of [Property E];

2.3The parties shall be equally responsible for and pay one half of the costs of the council and water rates on [Property E] and any maintenance to the said property required to effect its sale.

3.Upon completion of the sale of [Property E], the parties do all acts and things necessary to apportion and distribute the sale proceeds in the followings manner and priority:

3.1in payment of any rates or other local government charges applicable to [Property E];

3.2in payment of agents commission and advertising expenses on the sale;

3.3 in payment of any legal expenses on the sale;

3.4in payment of such sum to the Applicant so as to enable her to receive 50% of the total net property of the parties, having regard to the value of the items to be retained by the Applicant in the table at paragraph 39 of these reasons; and

3.5 the balance to the Respondent.

Other Property

4.Subject to the Orders provided herein, the Respondent retain all right, title, and interest in and to the following assets, and the Applicant forthwith relinquish title and possession of and any claim thereto in the following:

4.1 the furniture in his possession;

4.2 his personal effects and chattels;

4.3 his bank accounts; and

4.4any and all other property not provided for herein in his possession, including cash and any interest life insurance policies.

5.The Applicant retain all right, title, and interest in and to the following assets and the Respondent forthwith relinquish title and possession of any and claim thereto in the following:

5.1 the furniture in her possession;

5.2 her personal effect and chattels;

5.3 her motor vehicles;

5.4 her bank accounts;

5.5 her superannuation; and

5.6any and all other property not provided for herein in her possession including cash and any interest life insurance policies.

6.The parties shall sign all documents and do such acts as are necessary from time to time to give effect to the terms of these orders.

7.The matter be removed from the [City A] Circuit Defended List.

8.All documents produced by named persons pursuant to subpoena be returned or destroyed in accordance with the request from the named person on the expiration of 42 days from this order.

9.In relation to material tendered as an exhibit into evidence in these proceedings:

(a)all parties must collect the exhibits tendered by them (“their exhibits”), from the Chambers of the Honourable Chief Judge Sutherland, at least 28 days, and no later than 42 days, from today’s date;

(b)all parties must contact the Chambers of Honourable Chief Judge Sutherland to arrange the collection of their exhibits; and

(c)in default of compliance with sub-paragraph (a), all material tendered as an exhibit, save and except for material produced pursuant to subpoena, will be destroyed by the court without notice to the parties.

10.In the event of an appeal being lodged prior to the expiration period of 42 days, paragraphs 8 and 9 above do not apply.

11.All outstanding proceedings be and are hereby dismissed.

This anonymised version of the judgment been amended in places to correct errors in spelling and grammar and infelicity of expression, without changing the substance thereof.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Family Court of Western Australia.

KV

Associate

30 NOVEMBER 2020