RADCLIFF & RADCLIFF

In *Radcliff & Radcliff*, heard by McClelland DCJ, the parties sought orders for the adjustment of their matrimonial property. A central dispute concerned the classification of certain unvested share rights received by the husband as an employment-related benefit. The wife contended these unvested shares constituted property, while the husband argued they were merely a financial resource. The court was also required to determine the appropriate property adjustment, considering the husband's reduced earning capacity due to his focus on a start-up business and his role as the primary carer for the children, following his redundancy and the children's residence with him.

The court determined that the unvested shares were not property but a financial resource. This was because the vesting of these shares was contingent on conditions being met, and the company board retained a broad discretion regarding their vesting. In relation to the property adjustment, the court found that the husband was entitled to continue in his role as the children's primary parent, noting that his post-separation care of the children was greater than the wife's. The court also took into account that the wife had not paid child support to the husband.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife the sum of $988,020 within 14 days. Further orders directed the closure of a specific bank account, with the funds to be distributed to the wife in partial satisfaction of this sum. Each party was to retain sole legal and beneficial entitlement to other assets and financial resources in their possession, and to be indemnified against liabilities associated with those assets. Both parties were to retain their respective superannuation entitlements, foregoing any claims on each other's superannuation. The Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court at Wollongong was appointed to execute documents if either party failed to comply with the orders. The parties were granted liberty to apply in respect to costs.