NIKAS & ANTHIS

In this matter before Judge Bender, the court was required to make orders concerning the division of matrimonial assets and liabilities between the Husband and Wife. The dispute involved the sale of real property, the distribution of sale proceeds, and the division of superannuation interests. The orders also addressed the payment of a debt to a third party and the withdrawal of caveats lodged by the Husband over properties belonging to the Wife.

The primary legal issues before the court were how to equitably divide the parties' financial resources, including real estate and superannuation, and to ensure that the orders made would finally determine the financial relationship between the parties. Specifically, the court had to determine the terms of the sale of a property, the allocation of its proceeds, and the method by which a portion of the Wife's superannuation interest would be transferred to the Husband. The court also considered the Wife's obligations in relation to the Husband's superannuation entitlements and the circumstances under which certain actions by the Wife would be restrained.

The court's reasoning, as reflected in the orders, involved a detailed allocation of assets and liabilities. The real property was to be sold by auction with a specified reserve price, and the proceeds were to be applied first to sale costs, then to discharge any encumbrances, with the balance to be paid to the Husband. The Wife was ordered to pay a sum to the Husband such that, when combined with the net proceeds of sale, it represented 22.5% of the matrimonial assets and liabilities, excluding superannuation and the Wife's inheritance. The court also made specific orders under sections 90MT(4) and 90MT(1)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* to allocate a base amount from the Wife's superannuation to the Husband and to bind the Trustee of the superannuation fund to make future payments accordingly. Further orders imposed restraints on the Wife's ability to deal with her superannuation interest in a manner that would render payments non-splittable.

The court ordered the Wife to pay $5,000 to Mr B in full satisfaction of monies owing. The court also granted the Husband leave to make an oral application for costs and set timelines for the parties to provide written submissions on the question of costs, with the costs application to be determined on the papers. The parties' intention was noted that these orders would, as far as practicable, finally determine their financial relationships.