Paxton & Paxton

This case concerned property proceedings initiated by a husband during his lifetime, following his separation from his wife in 2000. The husband died in 2015, and his brother was substituted as the applicant in his capacity as executor of the deceased husband's estate. The sole asset in dispute was the former matrimonial home, which was jointly owned by the parties. The wife was in very poor health and had dependent adult children with intellectual and physical disabilities, while the wife was financially destitute.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was just and equitable to divide the assets of the marriage, specifically the former matrimonial home, given the circumstances of the parties and the precedent set by the High Court in *Stanford v Stanford*. The court was also required to determine the appropriate costs order and consider the application of the principle of *stare decisis* in relation to the *Stanford* decision.

The court applied the principles discussed in *Stanford v Stanford*, which established that a property division is not automatically just and equitable simply because a marriage has ended. Judge Wilson noted that single judges are bound by the High Court's decision in *Stanford v Stanford* and are not permitted to deviate from it. In this instance, the court found that it was not just and equitable to divide the assets.

Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent wife retain the former matrimonial home for her sole use and benefit. The applicant, as executor of the deceased husband's estate, was ordered to withdraw the caveat lodged over the property at his expense. The court also ordered that each party be solely entitled to all other property in their possession, with specific provisions regarding bank accounts, superannuation, insurance policies, and liabilities. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, and all extant applications were dismissed.