PAVLEK & SPICE

In the matter of *Pavlek & Spice*, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the division of property and parenting arrangements between the parties following a ten-year de facto relationship. The primary property in contention was the husband's shareholding in a company, D Pty Ltd, of which he was a Board member. The parenting dispute involved allegations of sexual misconduct by the wife's father towards one of the children, which were not substantiated.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' property, taking into account their respective financial and non-financial contributions, as well as the future needs of each party. Specifically, the court had to assess the significance of the husband's sole responsibility for managing the company and his greater financial contributions against the wife's role as primary carer for the three children of the relationship and her lack of responsibility for the parties' debts. In relation to parenting, the court needed to consider whether any orders were necessary to protect the children, given the unsubstantiated allegations made against the maternal grandfather.

Cleary J found that the husband had made a significantly greater financial contribution to the relationship, bearing sole responsibility for running the company and managing the shareholdings. While the wife was the primary carer of the children and took no responsibility for the parties' debts, the court determined that no adjustments to the property division were warranted on this basis. The court applied the principles of contribution and adjustment under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), ultimately ordering a property division of 65 per cent to the husband and 35 per cent to the wife. The husband was made solely responsible for debts owed to his father and was ordered to indemnify the wife in respect of any claims relating to those liabilities. To avoid financial disadvantage to the husband, the court ordered that the shares be sold rather than transferred to the wife, given her alliance with Board members since separation.

In respect of parenting, although the allegations of sexual misconduct were not substantiated, the court made an order restraining the wife from leaving the children in the sole care of their maternal grandfather. This order was put in place to protect the children and the grandfather from further allegations. The court ordered that the company D Pty Ltd sell its shareholding in P Pty Limited for not less than $5.5 million within 12 months, with the proceeds to be divided according to the 65/35 per cent split.