Oakman and Fenton

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Oakman (the applicant husband) and Ms Fenton (the respondent wife) presented competing interim applications concerning their property. The proceedings arose from a long marriage of approximately 30 years, which had ended in divorce. Despite extensive negotiations and a prior 'Heads of Agreement', settlement had broken down, leading to further litigation.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether to join P Pty Limited as trustee of the Fenton Super Fund as a party, the reinstatement of the wife as a director and shareholder of that trustee company, and the husband's accounting for trust proceeds withdrawn from the fund. Further issues involved facilitating discussions with the National Australia Bank regarding the sale of a property known as Town F, the discharge of any debt secured on the parties' yacht, and the sale of the yacht and marina pen. The court also considered the wife's application for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home at Suburb D and the husband's application for its sale.

Justice Cleary applied principles relating to interim property orders and the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court ordered that P Pty Limited be joined as a party and that the husband take steps to reinstate the wife as a director and shareholder of the trustee company, ensure the superannuation fund became compliant, and grant her signatory status on its bank accounts. The husband was also ordered to account for trust proceeds withdrawn and provide financial records of the superannuation fund. Regarding the Town F property, orders were made to enable both parties to participate in discussions with the mortgagee in possession concerning its sale, with net proceeds to be held in a controlled monies account. The husband was ordered to discharge any debt secured on the yacht, and the wife was given authority to sell the yacht and marina pen, with specific distribution of the proceeds. The husband was restrained from entering the Suburb D property without the wife's written consent, and the wife was granted exclusive occupation. The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home or a lump sum interim property settlement due to insufficient evidence. The Registrar was appointed to execute documents if a party refused to do so, and a conciliation conference was scheduled.