SAELI & CHANTHARA

This matter concerned a property dispute between a husband and wife who were in a relationship from approximately 1995 until 2016. The dispute arose following the husband's departure from Australia for several months in 2012, during which time the matrimonial home was transferred to the wife, who subsequently assumed responsibility for the mortgage payments. Although the parties resumed joint financial ventures between 2013 and 2016, these were reportedly unsuccessful, particularly the husband's café business. The court was required to determine the division of the parties' assets and liabilities.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriate adjustments to be made to the property settlement based on the parties' contributions and future needs. Specifically, the court had to consider the wife's substantially greater overall contribution to the relationship and her ongoing care of the parties' autistic son, which impacted her future earning capacity. The court also had to address the division of superannuation interests and the disposition of the former matrimonial home.

In its reasoning, the court found that the wife's contributions were significantly greater than the husband's, warranting a 20% adjustment in her favour. Further, acknowledging the wife's greater earning capacity but also her lifelong responsibility for their son's care, the court made an additional 7% adjustment in respect of future needs. The court ordered that the wife pay the husband $106,522 within 60 days. In the event of non-payment, the former matrimonial home was to be sold, with proceeds applied first to sale costs, then to discharge the mortgage, then to pay the outstanding amount to the husband with interest. A sum of $53,000 was to be paid to the wife for repayment of a loan to her brother, and the remaining balance was to be divided with 23% to the husband and 77% to the wife. Pending payment or sale, the wife was granted sole occupation of the property, responsible for mortgage and outgoings. Each party was declared the sole owner of other assets in their possession, and their respective superannuation interests were to remain with each party.