NORRIS & DENIS (No.3)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for property settlement following the breakdown of a de facto relationship, brought under section 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court was required to determine the appropriate orders for the alteration of property interests between the parties.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the financial and non-financial contributions of each party to the relationship and their property, considering the future needs and earning capacities of both parties, and determining what order, if any, would be just and equitable in all the circumstances. The court also had to address potential implementation problems with any orders made, particularly concerning the sale of a jointly owned property.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles outlined in section 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which mandates consideration of financial contributions, non-financial contributions, contributions to the welfare of the family, the effect of proposed orders on earning capacity, and any other relevant matters. The court noted that the proceedings were undefended, which simplified the assessment of contributions and future needs. The court anticipated difficulties in the practical implementation of property division and therefore made detailed orders to ensure a just and equitable outcome.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay a specific sum to the Applicant within 14 days. In the event of non-compliance, a series of cascading orders were made, including the Respondent vacating the jointly owned property, the Applicant being appointed Trustee for the sale of that property with broad powers to facilitate its sale at the earliest possible date, and specific directions for the application of the net proceeds from the sale. Further orders addressed the transfer of jointly held shares to the Applicant, the winding up of a self-managed superannuation fund with costs borne equally and the balance to the Respondent, and the closure of a joint bank account with proceeds to the Applicant. The parties were also ordered to be liable for their respective debts and to indemnify each other. The court also made provision for the appointment of a Registrar to execute documents if a party refused to do so, and outlined a process for the determination of costs.