NORTHCOTT & NORTHCOTT

In the matter of *Northcott & Northcott*, heard before Judge Small, the dispute concerned property settlement and parenting orders between the parties. The property settlement proceedings were characterised by chaotic and equivocal evidence, with significant factual disputes between the parties. Additionally, the mother sought the removal of an injunction that prevented her new partner from having contact with the children.

The court was required to determine the division of the parties' assets and liabilities, including various properties and superannuation interests, and to make orders regarding parenting arrangements. The court also had to consider the implications of potential civil and/or criminal charges faced by the parties.

The court applied the principles of property settlement under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering various factors outlined in section 90SF(3). Ultimately, the court ordered a division of net assets, with the respondent receiving 57.5% and the applicant receiving 42.5%. This division was to be effected through specific orders concerning the retention and sale of various properties, the payment of loans, and the splitting of superannuation interests. The court also made orders restraining the applicant from making certain death benefit nominations in relation to his superannuation to protect the respondent's entitlement.

The court made detailed orders regarding the payment of a sum of money from the applicant to the respondent, the discharge of specific loans, and the sale of certain investment properties. It was ordered that the applicant retain Property R, while the respondent would retain Property M. The investment properties were to be sold, with proceeds applied to costs, mortgages, and then divided between the parties. Specific provisions were made for the splitting of the applicant's superannuation interest in favour of the respondent, and the applicant was restrained from diminishing the value of this entitlement. In the event of non-compliance with payment orders, Property R was to be placed on the market for sale. The court also addressed the disposition of a piano, with the respondent to retain it.