RAINFORD & RAINFORD

In *Rainford & Rainford*, Foster J of the Family Court of Australia was required to determine property adjustment orders between the applicant wife and the respondent husband. The dispute concerned the division of the parties' assets and liabilities, with a specific consideration given to the wife's prospective inheritance and the husband's prospective Capital Gains Tax liabilities. The parties had conceded that adjusting orders were appropriate and that a final adjusted pool for division should be considered.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate division of the parties' property pool, taking into account various factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. This included assessing the relevance of the wife's prospective inheritance and the husband's potential Capital Gains Tax liabilities on certain properties. The court needed to decide how these factors should influence the final property adjustment and whether any further adjustment beyond contribution-based findings was warranted.

Foster J reasoned that while the wife's prospective inheritance and the husband's prospective CGT liabilities were relevant considerations, the court should not further adjust the contribution-based findings. The court ultimately ordered a division of the property pool as to 52.5 per cent to the wife and 47.5 per cent to the husband. The orders detailed the transfer of specific properties between the parties, the refinancing or discharge of associated mortgages, a monetary payment from the husband to the wife, and a superannuation split in accordance with the *Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001*. The parties were ordered to retain other assets and liabilities to their exclusion, with provisions made for the Registrar to sign documents if a party refused to do so.