Saleh & Saleh - [2005] FMCAfam 133

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SALEH & SALEH

[2005] FMCAfam 133

FAMILY LAW – Property – short marriage – even shorter period of cohabitation – relevant period – assessment of contributions – how particular contributions are to be treated.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Family Law Act 1975

Bushby and Bushby (1988) FLC 91-919
G v G (2000) 26 Fam LR 592
H v T [2002] FMCAfam 209
In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
In the Marriage of Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335
In the Marriage of Gill (1984) 9 Fam LR 969
In the Marriage of Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626
Kowalski and Kowalski (1993) FLC 92-342
Norbis and Norbis(1986) 161 CLR 513
Olliver (1978) FLC 90-499
Parshen v Parshen (1996) FLC 92-720
Plut and Plut (1987) FLC 91-834
Quinn and Quinn (1979) FLC 90-677
Russell v Russell (1999) FLC 92-877

Applicant:

HANAN SALEH

Respondent:

EHAB SALEH

File Number:

SYM 5196 OF 2004

Judgment of:

Sexton FM

Hearing date:

15 March 2005

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

30 March 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr R Battley

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Pigott Stinson Ratner Thom

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr N McPherson

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Vosnakis & Associates

ORDER BY CONSENT:

That in relation to the contents of the former matrimonial home, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the following shall occur:
(a)The husband shall be declared the owner of the laptop computer.
(b)The wife shall be declared the owner of the Sony television set and the husband shall, within 14 days of order, make the Sony television set available for collection by the wife or her agent.
(c)Within 7 days of order, the husband shall prepare and provide to the wife two lists of the balance of the whole of the contents of the home of approximately equal value and the wife shall select one of the two lists.
(d)The wife shall be declared the owner of the items on the list selected by her and the husband shall be declared the owner of the items on the other list.
(e)The husband shall, within 14 days of order, make available for collection by the wife or her agent the items on the list selected by the wife.

AND THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS:

That within 60 days of the date of order, the husband pay to the wife by way of property settlement the sum of $28,411.00.
That simultaneously with the payment referred to in Order (2) herein the husband be declared the owner of the whole of the right title and interest in the property known as and situated at 1/476, The Boulevarde, Kirrawee in the State of New South Wales, being the whole of the land identified in Folio Identifier 1/SP60986, subject to mortgage to the Bank of Queensland.
That in the event the husband fails to comply with Order (2) by the due date the husband do all things and sign all documents necessary to cause the former matrimonial home at 1/476 The Boulevarde Kirrawee NSW (“the former matrimonial home”) to be sold and the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home be paid in the following manner and priority:
(a)In payment of agent’s commission, including advertising costs, on sale;
(b)In payment of legal costs on sale;
(c)In discharge of the mortgage to the Bank of Queensland on the property;
(d)In payment of $28,411.00 in addition to interest payable at the rate prescribed in the Family Law Rules from the due date
(e)In payment of the balance to the husband.
That except as otherwise provided, each party be declared the sole owner and beneficial owner, to the exclusion of the other, of all other property and financial resources of whatsoever nature and kind including bank accounts, superannuation entitlements, shareholdings and all other personal property held in their own names or in their possession at the date of the orders.
That each party have liberty to apply at 7 days notice in relation to implementation of these orders.
That all exhibits tendered in these proceedings be returned at the expiration of one calendar month unless an appeal is lodged.
That the solicitor who issued any subpoena collect that subpoenaed material and return it to the owner within seven (7) days.
That all outstanding applications are dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PARRAMATTA

SYM 5196 of 2004

HANAN SALEH

Applicant

And

EHAB SALEH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Applications

These are proceedings for property settlement pursuant to Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975.
The wife filed an application on 29 October 2003 seeking the following orders:
a)That the parties do all things and sign all documents necessary to cause the former matrimonial home at 1/476 The Boulevarde Kirrawee NSW (“the former matrimonial home”) to be sold.
b)That the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home be paid in the following manner and priority:
i)In payment of agent’s commission on sale;
ii)In payment of legal costs on sale;
iii)A payment to discharge any mortgage, charge or any other encumbrance on the property;
iv)One half of the balance to the wife; and
v)The remainder to the husband.
c)That the wife be declared the sole owner of the washing machine, dryer and microwave oven presently located at the former matrimonial home.
d)That the parties divide equally between them items of furniture presently located in the former matrimonial home.
e)That except as otherwise specified herein, each party be declared the sole owner and beneficial owner, to the exclusion of the other, of all other property and financial resources of whatsoever nature and kind including bank accounts, superannuation entitlements, shareholdings and all other personal property held in their own names or in their possession at the date of the orders.
The husband filed a Response on 5 December 2003 consenting to Orders (c), (d) and (e) of the wife’s application and seeking the following orders:
a)The Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $15,000.00.
b)The Respondent be declared the sole owner of the property known as 1/476 The Boulevarde, Kirrawee to the exclusion of the Applicant.
c)The Applicant deliver to the Respondent the 2 engagement rings (“the rings”) and the Respondent be declared the sole owner of the rings to the exclusion of the Applicant.
At hearing, the husband no longer sought Order (c). Further, the parties agreed that the contents of the former matrimonial home should be divided equally between them by the two list method, with the exception of two items. I have made the order in relation to household contents set out at the beginning of these Reasons with the consent of the parties.

Background facts

The wife was born on 17 January 1981. She is 24 years old.
The husband was born on 7 November 1978. He is 26 years old.
The parties married on 30 July 2001 in Sydney.
The parties commenced cohabitation on 31 January 2003.
The parties separated on 26 June 2003.
There are no children of the marriage.
The parties divorced on 20 August 2004.

Issues

The primary issues are these:
·Whether the parties’ contributions should be evaluated from the date of marriage or from the date of commencement of cohabitation.
·How the wife’s father’s financial contribution to the parties of $15,000.00 should be treated.
·Whether there should be any adjustment in favour of either party on the basis of Section 75(2) factors.

The relevant law - property

Section 79 of the Family Law Act defines the Court’s powers in determining applications for property settlement. Section 79(2) provides that:
“The Court shall not make an Order under this Section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the Order.”
Section 79(4) sets out the matters the Court must take into account when considering what orders should be made for the alteration of the interest of the parties in property. Those matters, as far as they are relevant to the facts of this case, include:
a)The financial and non-financial contributions made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of each party to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any property of the parties;
b)The contribution made by a party to the welfare of the family including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker;
c)The effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party;
d)The matters referred to in sub-section 75(2) as far as they are relevant.
The approach to the determination of an application under Section 79 is well established by authority (In the Marriage of Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626; In the Marriage of Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335; In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595). The process involves four steps. Firstly, identifying the assets, liabilities and financial resources of the parties at the time of the hearing. Secondly, evaluating the contributions made by the parties as defined in section 79(4) (a) to (c) and the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party. Thirdly, evaluating the relevant matters contained in section 75(2). The court must also take into account any other order already made under the Act affecting a party or child and any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage is to provide or might be liable to provide in the future for the children of the marriage. Fourthly, the court must be satisfied in all the circumstances that it is just and equitable to make the orders [Section 79(2)]. It is the justice and equity of the actual orders that the court must consider: Russell v Russell (1999) FLC 92-877.

Evidence and findings

The parties married on 30 July 2001 and separated on 26 June 2003. By mutual arrangement the parties returned to live at their respective parents’ homes after the marriage ceremony and did not commence cohabitation until 31 January 2003. The husband said the parties married according to Islamic rites and it was because of Islamic custom that the parties did not commence cohabitation until 31 January 2003. He annexed to his affidavit at ES1 a letter from the Mufty of Australia certifying that marriage in Islam has a number of stages. These are:
a)Engagement;
b)The religious solemnization of the marriage;
c)The wedding leading to cohabitation and consummation.
The wife deposed to the parties having insufficient savings to be able to afford a reception which would “signal” the commencement of their cohabitation together as man and wife. She said they needed an estimated $20,000.00 to meet the full costs of the reception and bridal attire. The wife said she wanted to complete her degree and the husband wanted to keep working to save the money. There was no challenge by either party to the fact that this arrangement was a mutual one.
Counsel for the husband submitted that the Court should only consider contributions of the parties made during the period of their cohabitation rather than during the whole of the period of the marriage. Counsel for the husband was unable to support his submission with any authority and I do not accept his submission. From July 2001 the parties were married and committed to each other. From that time until the date of cohabitation, it was not in contention that the parties went out together socially as husband and wife, made financial decisions in consultation with each other and purchased furniture and household appliances together. The parties inspected properties together. Both parties’ parents contributed monies for the benefit of the parties. The husband deposed to his wife using his car while he met the car expenses. The husband no doubt paid other expenses for the benefit of the wife, as she was a student and earning very little income. The parties made improvements to the matrimonial home. Lindenmayer J in the Full Court decision of Plut and Plut (1987) FLC 91-834 said [76,275]:
… it cannot be disputed that it is the marriage ceremony which establishes the legal relationship of husband and wife and forms the basis for the rights and obligations of the parties to that ceremony against and towards each other. Once that legal relationship is established by the ceremony of marriage then the rights and obligations of the parties towards each other in relation to maintenance must be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act…
Pursuant to Section 79(4)(a) and (b) of the Act, the Court must take into account the financial and non-financial contributions made by or on behalf of a party to the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage, or either of them. It is the marriage which attracts the jurisdiction to make a property adjustment order. There is nothing in the Act which requires parties to be cohabiting before contributions can be taken into account. On the contrary. The Court in Olliver (1978) FLC 90-499 said:
There is nothing in Section 79(4)(a) or (b) which requires the Court to disregard financial or other material contributions made before the marriage.” [my emphasis]
There are a number of authorities which make it clear that contributions made outside the actual marriage period can be taken into account: In the marriage of Gill (1984) 9 Fam LR 969; G v G (2000) 26 Fam LR 592; Kowalski and Kowalski (1993) FLC 92-342.
There can be no question in the present case that the fathers of both parties made financial contributions as a direct result of the parties’ marriage. There is a clear nexus between the contributions and the marriage.

In relation to Step 1: Identifying the assets and liabilities of the parties.

The parties reached agreement as to the value of the assets and the quantum of liabilities.
I find that the assets, liabilities and financial resources of the parties as at the date of hearing are as identified in the following table:

Assets as at the date of hearing	$
1/476 The Boulevarde, Kirrawee [Husband]	400,000.00
Household contents	11,000.00
Cash in bank [Husband]	11,000.00
Cash in bank [Wife]	700.00
Wife’s superannuation	7,416.00
Husband’s superannuation	15,000.00
Loan secured by mortgage on the Kirrawee property	(270,000.00)
TOTAL NET ASSETS AT HEARING	175,116.00

The parties agreed to exclude any other assets and liabilities held by each of them.
There was no evidence before me in relation to payment of legal costs by either party and neither party asked me to include legal costs in the pool of assets. No account has therefore been taken of legal costs paid or anticipated to be paid by either party.
I therefore find the nett asset pool of the parties available for division between them to be as set out in paragraph 22, being a total of $175,116.00.

In relation to Step 2: assessing the contributions of each party.

The parties were married for only 23 months. The length of the marriage is relevant to assessment of contributions: Quinn and Quinn (1979) FLC 90-677. The Full Court in a four year marriage with no dependent children involved, said in Bushby and Bushby (1988) FLC 91-919 at 76,667:
Each party’s actual financial contribution to the marriage was the primary issue.
In a short marriage, it is particularly important to give close attention to the assessment of contributions whether of a financial or non-financial kind and to carefully evaluate the contributions of each party.
Neither counsel asked me to deal with this matter on an asset by asset basis. Given that the parties’ assets have accumulated during and after the marriage I have adopted the global approach. In Norbis and Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513, the High Court held that either approach is legitimate but also said:
However there is much to be said for the view that in most cases the global approach is the more convenient.
At the date of marriage the wife was a full time Bachelor of Science student majoring in nutrition. The husband was a site foreman with Qusar Constructions. The wife gave no evidence in her affidavit as to the assets and liabilities held by her at the date of marriage. During cross examination at hearing the wife said she had an estimated $10,000.00 in savings at the date of marriage. She was unable to corroborate this evidence with documents available at hearing. She said she did not include this evidence in her affidavit because “my solicitor did not ask me”. I do not accept the wife’s evidence on this issue. The wife was a full time student at the date of marriage and earned only $3,719.00 in the financial year ending June 2001. The wife was legally represented during these proceedings. This case concerns financial and non-financial contributions to the assets of the parties. The question of what the wife owned at the date of marriage is a fundamental issue. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the wife had any assets or liabilities of significance at the date of marriage.
As there is no clear evidence before me as to the assets and liabilities held by the husband at the date of marriage (only at the date of cohabitation) I take into account that he owned a car, sold 2 years later for $2,500.00 and a small superannuation entitlement.
The significant asset in this case is the property at 1/476 The Boulevarde, Kirrawee [“the home”]. The present nett value of the home, agreed at $130,000.00 [$400,000.00 less a loan balance of $270,000.00] amounts to almost 75% of the agreed net asset pool of the parties.
The following facts were not in dispute:
a)In or around September 2001 the parties and their parents inspected properties in the southern suburbs of Sydney.
b)On a date between July and September 2001 the wife’s father gave the parties $15,000.00 in cash.
c)In October 2001, the husband purchased a property in his sole name at 1/476 The Boulevarde, Kirrawee for $312,500.00 which became the matrimonial home.
d)In or about October/November 2001 the husband’s father gave the husband $29,000.00.
e)The husband borrowed funds from the Bank of Queensland necessary to settle the purchase. The wife was earning a minimal income at that time as she was a full time student.
f)The husband alone has made the mortgage repayments on the home since its purchase.
g)The home was tenanted from the time of its purchase until about December 2002 at $275.00 per week. The rent was paid to the husband to assist with expenses on the home, including the mortgage repayments.
h)The parties undertook renovations on the home at the end of 2002 or early 2003.
i)The husband earned $28,128.00 (gross) in the 2002 financial year and $31,993.00 (gross) in the 2003 financial year.
j)The wife commenced full time employment as a nutritionist at about the end of 2002 and earned $18,044.00 (gross) in the 2003 financial year.
k)The parties commenced cohabitation in the home at the end of January 2003.
l)During cohabitation the financial arrangement between the parties was that the husband paid the household accounts, mortgage and utilities and the wife paid for day to day expenses and contributed her income to the welfare of the parties.
m)The husband has been occupying the home since the parties’ separation in June 2003 and meeting the expenses on the home. The wife has received no financial benefit from the home since separation.
n)The home has increased in value by $87,500.00 since its purchase.
In broad terms, the husband’s case was that the wife made a minimal contribution to the home, the major asset of the parties. The husband denied any part of the $15,000.00 contributed by the wife’s father was used for the purchase of the home. The husband contended that the $15,000.00 from the wife’s father was contributed to non-asset producing expenses, being the wedding/honeymoon and assets which decreased in value, being the furniture and household goods. The wife’s case was that the $15,000.00 given to the parties by her father, was for the purchase of the home. The wife argued that by way of further financial contribution, she used her income for the benefit of the household from January until June 2003 and made other non-financial contributions by way of painting the home and performing almost all the domestic tasks during the period of the parties’ cohabitation. The wife asserted in oral evidence that her mother gave her $5,000.00 after marriage to purchase various household items. As this evidence was not included in her affidavit and her mother was not on affidavit, I have not taken this evidence into account in weighing the parties’ respective contributions.

The husband asserted that he met the whole of the purchase price and all additional costs and fees relating to the purchase of the home from his own funds, from funds provided by his father [$29,000.00], the first home owners grant [$7,000.00] and borrowings from the Bank of Queensland in the sum of $296,875.00, of which $289,935.40 was contributed to the purchase, after bank expenses were deducted. He provided evidence of paying a holding deposit of $782.00 on 15 October 2001 and of paying the balance of the deposit of $30,468.00 on 26 October 2001. He provided evidence of his payment of stamp duty in the sum of $9,556.50 on 22 November 2001 and legal fees of $600.00 on 23 November 2001. The husband provided evidence of his deposit of the excess funds of $7,467.70 from the loan from the Bank of Queensland and the $7,000.00 home owners grant to his offset account with the Bank of Queensland. He deposed to using the $29,000.00 from his father towards the deposit. He said he used none of the $15,000.00 provided by the wife’s father for the purchase of the home. He said he kept the cash in his parents’ safe until November 2001 when he banked $11,000.00 which was later spent by the parties. He said he used at least some of the remainder for the deposit for the wedding reception venue in about December 2001.
Both counsel’s cross examination of the parties and the parties’ fathers focussed on the purpose for which the $15,000.00 in cash handed to the parties by the wife’s father was given. From her recollection of conversations during 2001, the wife contended that her father had made it clear the $15,000.00 he was giving to the parties was to assist with the purchase of their home. The wife’s father said he had agreed with the husband’s father they would contribute equally to the wedding, furniture and home, but $15,000.00 was what he could afford. The husband contended the wife’s father made it clear he wanted the funds to be used towards the costs of the wedding and for furniture and expressly refused to contribute any funds towards a home.
The parties and their respective fathers endeavoured to recall conversations and events which occurred in 2001, nearly 4 years ago. The husband and his father’s evidence as to conversations was almost identical. Counsel for the husband submitted there were a number of reasons I should prefer their evidence to that of the wife and her father: the wife’s evidence was materially different from the evidence of her father in a number of material respects; the wife’s parents gave a false declaration in a caveat registered on the title of the home in July 2003; the evidence as to the wife’s father withdrawing money from his bank in February 2001 and keeping in cash at home for some months before handing it to the parties, was not credible.
I accept counsel’s submission that there were inconsistencies between the wife’s affidavit evidence and her father’s affidavit evidence in relation to the context in which the $15,000.00 was given. I also accept counsel’s submission that the contents of the caveat signed by the wife’s father were inaccurate and that the wife’s parents did not pay proper regard to the contents of the schedule in the caveat before declaring its truth. I am satisfied the wife’s father had paid no attention to the facts set out in schedule 1 of the caveat he signed on 25 July 2001. Under cross examination he readily admitted the contents were wrong in a number of respects and that he had relied on what his solicitor had prepared as accurate, without checking. However, although I am critical of the wife’s father in relation to this issue, I am not satisfied the wife’s father deliberately made a false declaration, or was attempting to mislead the court. In relation to his withdrawing monies from his bank and retaining it in his home in cash, I accepted his evidence that this was “his way” of ensuring it was earmarked for the parties and not spent. It was the evidence of the husband that he retained the cash given to him by the wife’s father for a period of months before banking it. On the whole I found the wife’s father to be a witness of credit.
I did not prefer one father’s evidence against the other. However, in my view the contents of whatever conversations took place in 2001 and each party’s recollections of precisely what was said, by whom and when, is immaterial to the decision I must make. The undisputed fact is that the wife’s father gave the parties $15,000.00 sometime between July and September 2001 and those funds were available to the husband as the joint funds of the parties when he purchased the home in October 2001. Whether he used those particular funds towards the purchase of the home or for furniture or for the wedding is of no consequence. The husband conceded that the $15,000.00 was available to him at the time of purchase of the home.
The wife deposed to the husband locating the property at 1/476 The Boulevarde, Kirrawee [“the home”] in or about early October 2001. According to the wife, she agreed to the purchase and the husband arranged a loan with the Bank of Queensland in his name alone. According to the wife, she was present when the deposit was paid and the husband signed the contract.
It was not in dispute that the parties purchased items for the home during 2002. I accept the date of 2000 was a typographical error at paragraph 22 of her affidavit. The wife listed various purchases and deposed to the parties meeting half the cost of each purchase. The husband agreed the parties purchased some items together and that he paid for others. The husband agreed that he contributed funds towards the wedding and associated expenses, as did the wife.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the parties purchased the home, furniture and whitegoods and met the expenses of their wedding for their joint purpose. I am satisfied the wife’s father’s contributed $15,000.00 towards these expenses and that it is immaterial which part of the $15,000.00 was contributed to the purchase of the home, the furniture or the wedding. I am satisfied the husband’s father contributed an estimated $29,000.00 at around the time of the purchase of the home. I find the husband had a significantly greater income than the wife during the 2001, 2002 and 2003 financial years because the wife was a student until January 2003 and only then started to earn a full time income. I am satisfied and it was not contested that during the 2003 financial year, the husband met the majority of the parties’ expenses including the $15,000.00 spent on improving the home. However, the fact that the husband made the majority of the financial contributions during the marriage and to the purchase and ongoing expenses related to the home, does not make him the only contributor to those assets. As Her Honour CFM Bryant [as she then was] said in H v T [2002] FMCAfam 209:
Section 79(4) requires the Court to look at the entirety of the contributions, both financial and non-financial, to the welfare of the family as well as to the acquisition, conservation and improvement of their assets. Those contributions are not required in an evidentiary sense, to be tied to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of a particular asset and are to be taken into account generally as contributions in a total sense.
The wife deposed to completing her degree and commencing her employment as a dietician in November/December 2002. She earned a gross income of $18,044.00 in the 2003 financial year. She said she contributed these earnings to expenses for the household. There is no evidence to suggest the wife did not contribute her income to the expenses of the family and I am satisfied that she did so. See Parshen v Parshen (1996) FLC 92-720. The question of which party paid which expenses during the period in which the wife was working is of no consequence. I am satisfied both parties contributed their earnings to their day to day expenses during the period they lived in the home.
There is no doubt that the wife’s contributions under 79(4)(a) and (b) over the period of the marriage were much less than those of the husband. The husband earned a total gross income of $60,121.00 during the two years of marriage, and the wife a total gross income of $22,921.00. Given the very short period of the marriage and even shorter period of cohabitation, the wife did not have time to offset the husband’s greater financial contributions. I do not however, accept counsel for the husband’s submission that I should add the list of contributions listed in the husband’s affidavit at paragraph 33 to find a precise dollar figure for his contributions. As submitted by counsel for the wife, the husband has ignored the monies received by way of rent in his figures, ignored the fact the husband has enjoyed the benefit of the home since separation and has not credited the wife with a single dollar from her earnings from January 2003.
In relation to non-financial contributions, the parties renovated their home just prior to the commencement of cohabitation. The wife deposed to re-painting the home with the husband and friends. The wife said during the 5 month period the parties lived together, she did all the housework including preparing the husband’s lunch for work each day. She said the husband’s contribution was limited to mowing the lawn once a fortnight. The husband did not contest this evidence. However, given the short length of the parties’ marriage and the even shorter period of cohabitation, I have attached minor significance to these contributions.
Taking all these matters into consideration leads me to the view that, as a result of their respective contributions, the assets of the parties should be apportioned 24% to the wife and 76% to the husband.
The orders that I propose making in this matter will not affect the earning capacity of either party to these proceedings.

In relation to Step 3: A consideration of ‘future factors’.

I have considered each of the factors listed in Section 75(2) of the Act.
·The parties are young. The husband is 26 years of age, the wife 24 years of age. There was no evidence before me to suggest either party suffered any health problems.
·Both parties are in paid employment. The wife is a dietician/nutritionist. According to her Financial Statement the wife is employed by the N.S.W Department of Health as a dietician earning an annual income of $41,600.00. As her Statement has not been completed correctly, it is not clear from her evidence whether she receives an additional amount for superannuation or whether superannuation is included in her salary figure. The husband is a builder. According to his Financial Statement, the husband is earning an annual income of $61,984.00 in addition to a motor vehicle allowance and payment for superannuation. The wife has only been in employment as a dietician since the end of 2002 so should expect her income to increase as she gains more experience. The husband’s income has increased each year over the past several years. Although being urged to do so by counsel for the wife, I find no basis for an adjustment on the basis of the difference in the parties’ income.
·Neither of the parties has commitments other than those necessary to support himself or herself.
·Neither party is cohabiting with another person.
·Neither party has any children.
·The marriage was of short duration. It has not affected the earning capacity of either party.
I am not satisfied there is any basis for an adjustment pursuant to Section 75(2) of the Act.
It is my view, that a just and equitable result requires the wife to be paid an amount equivalent to 24% of the net asset pool of the parties. The matrimonial assets total $175,116.00 which means the wife needs the sum of $42,027.00 to receive 24% of the net asset pool.
The wife will already have the assets and liabilities set out in this table:

Assets and liabilities to be retained by wife	$
Wife’s share of contents of the home	5,500.00
Wife’s cash at bank	700.00
Wife’s superannuation	7,416.00
Total	13,616.00

She will therefore need a further $28,411.00. The husband will already have the assets set out in the following table and will be required to make arrangements to pay the wife the sum ordered.

Assets and liabilities to be retained by husband	$
Husband’s share of contents of the home	5,500.00
Husband’s cash at bank	11,000.00
1/476 The Boulevarde, Kirrawee	400,000.00
Husband’s superannuation	15,000.00
Mortgage debt on Kirrawee	(270,000.00)
Total	161,500.00

I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the Orders set out at the beginning of these Reasons are just and equitable.

I certify that the preceding fifty-two (52) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Sexton FM

Associate: Collette McFawn

Date: 30 March 2005