PETERS & JENSEN

This case concerned a property settlement dispute between Mr Peters (the husband) and Ms Jensen (the wife) in the context of a de facto relationship. The primary dispute revolved around the division of the parties' assets and the weight to be given to their various financial and non-financial contributions throughout their long-term relationship, particularly in light of a significant inheritance received by one party late in the relationship.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make an order altering the parties' legal and equitable interests in their property. This involved considering whether there was a preliminary threshold step before assessing contributions and other relevant factors under the relevant sections of the Family Law Act, and how to approach the balancing of disparate contributions, including a large inheritance received late in the relationship. The court also had to consider the application of principles analogous to section 75(2) of the Family Law Act, including matters such as paid legal costs and pre-emptive property distributions, and the impact of any inadequately disclosed property or potential rights to property.

The court reasoned that, in conformity with principles established in cases such as *Bevan & Bevan*, it was not necessary to treat the question of whether an order altering property interests would be just and equitable as a preliminary, separate issue. Instead, justice and equity must permeate the entire process of adjustment, rather than being a distinct, formal stage. The court considered submissions regarding the weighting of contributions, with the husband arguing for a 30% contribution and the wife suggesting a range of 5-10% if a global approach was adopted. The court also addressed the wife's submission that certain assets, such as paid legal fees and a settlement payment, should be removed from the asset pool before division.

The court ordered that Ms Jensen must, within 60 days, either transfer her interest in a property at C Street, Suburb D, ACT to Mr Peters or pay him $800,000. If she did not choose to pay the sum, she was to transfer her interest in the property. Mr Peters was to indemnify Ms Jensen regarding claims related to the C Street property, and he was to bear the costs of the transfer. Ms Jensen was also ordered to pay Mr Peters a further $321,743 within 60 days. Additionally, Ms Jensen was to transfer her interest in an aircraft, a sailboat, the contents of the C Street property, a motor vehicle, and Mr Peters' CSS pension to him if requested. Both parties were declared the owners of property in their possession and control, with mutual indemnities regarding their respective properties.